[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> Maybe we should treat authors like software authors: When someone is
> the maintainer of a software package, they put their email address on
> it. They _expect_ to receive bug reports and gripes which are then
> folded back into the software to improve it. When it gets to be too
> much for them, they hand the reigns to someone else.
In all the time I've been involved with the LDP I have never understood
why anyone would hold a view that treated documentation any differently
from software. This is how the LDP operates already isn't it? If it's
not then I answered many hundreds of questions and made many updates
over the years that I could have just ignored. Free documentation *is*
the same as free software isn't it? The hardware on which they're
executed is different, but everything else important I can think of is
> Maybe a requirement for LDP authors should be an explicit ownership
> clause in the submission process which says "You agree to maintain
> this component" --- if someone doesn't want the great hoards of users
> sending them email to complain about a typo, them maybe an LDP doc is
> not for them, or they should add their doc to the "unmaintained" list.
If free documentation is like free software then you can't do this. If I
write free software I am under no obligation to maintain it.
There is of course no reason why the LDP couldn't set policy (other than
the fact that it has no legal standing and is therefore incapable of
making enforcable decisions on anything) that on this matter. This would
be analagous to the responsibilities of, for example, a Debian package
maintainer. You are able to claim control of the Debian package only
whileever you are actively maintaining it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org