[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Style Guide (was Re: I'm a sucker)


> > You require people to accept licences of varying degrees. Maybe
> > requiring people to state that feedback should at least be
> > CC'ed to the
> > LDP would be too difficult...or maybe I'm being sarcastic...I meant
> I don't follow you here.  What's wrong with the licensing policy?  Why
> should feedback on a document HAVE to go to the mailing list?  Sending it to
> the author has yielded good results for me.

I said the LDP not the mailing list. However one defines the LDP. If the
feedback gets copied to the LDP then everyone might have a chance to fix

> Yeah, but it certainly sounds like you're complaining that we're getting NO
> publicity, and not complaining about the bad publicity that we're getting.

Possibly because I might be pointing that out.

> It's got nothing to do with permission.  Debian was kind enough to host
> these mailing lists for us, since we did not have the resources to host them
> ourselves.  Now that we have those resources available, we're in the
> processor transferring to lists to a new server.

That was a political statement on my part; personally I think that
Debian is a good distribution but sometimes the maintainers - to use an
idiom - cut their noses to spite their face with their policies.

> different issues that arise from people emailing webmaster.  The concept for
> the LDP is the same.  People will not necessarily join the mailing list if
> they have suggestions or comments, they may simply wish to send them off.

It's too difficult to select from a list of email addresses where they
should be sent. I forgot that people are inherently lazy [1].

> > I will decline to propose new ideas on the "closed
> > list"....this, IN MY
> > OPINION, is quite silly. There should be one list and one list only.
> > Let's not go multi-personality....

That was supposed to read:

"I see no reason in maintaining an open to everyone who is anyone list.
It creates a good deal of confusion as to which list IS the LDP
discussion list."

> The mailing list runs the LDP.  The people who make policy decisions are the
> people who show up here and contribute.

I've noticed. Group consensus by the elite as I keep on saying...

> We don't care if they buy it, so long as it's available to them.  I'd like
> to see us get better name recognition so that people know where the
> documents can be found.  If people choose not to contribute back to the LDP,
> that's their decision, we cannot force them to contribute.

I was actually pointing out that good documentation has universal worth.

> Your arguments are NOT clear, and you made no mention of that being an
> example (that I could see, at least) in your mail.  Have you read the LAG?

Yes, I have. I have a tendency to argue in hyperbole (it does throw
people considerably I know but it makes for interesting dinner talk).

> Maybe you aren't making yourself clear...

My point is that DTD's and other schema (for want of a better word) help
create valid documents. The XML specification is quite clear on this -
whilst a document may be well-formed it is not necessarily valid. And
because we can't expect XML parsers to be telepathic they must be
provided with a DTD.

> The LAG has some guidelines for this, and there are a couple of sample
> templates, and TONS of sample HOWTOs to go from.  What EXACTLY are you
> asking for?

Nothing in particular. I am vaguely contributing ideas and arguments to
the style guide :-)

> Yeah, so what?  We have stylesheets that are designed to do a good job
> creating output from the documents that we receive.  The LAG outlines the
> things that you should do before you decide to submit your document to us.


The argument you answered "so what" to is lost in the ether. It made
sense at the time and in the context I made it. I'm afraid, in this
e-mail, it's lost context to an extent where it doesn't make sense.

> <!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook V4.1//EN">
> <book>
> <title>Using "ls"</title>
> <chapter>
> <para>
> Unless you are a <emphasis>black man</emphasis> or <emphasis>jewish
> woman</emphasis> you will already understand what the "ls" 
> command does.
> </para>
> </chapter>
> </book>

> First, be sure to spell-check your document. Most utilities that you would
> use to write SGML have plug-ins to perform a spell check. If not, there's
> always the aspell program.

There's no spelling errors in that particular snippet of the document.
There would be no less spelling errors in the whole document.

> Second, get someone to review your documentation for comments and factual
> correctness.

What if this is the "Linux for the [name a right wing white nationalist
group]"? I assume that they would validate various statements that
others would find repungant.

> The documentation that is published by the LDP needs to be as
> factually correct as possible, as there
> are millions of Linux users that may be reading it. If you're part of a
> larger mailing list talking about the subject, ask others from the list to
> help you out.

I was essentially saying to the people who seem to want to throw out
these sections that they should be kept in [2].
> This WILL be fixed, as soon as it can be.  As of right now, administrative
> control for these lists is out of our hands.  Once it IS within our power,
> it will be fixed.  Patience is a virtue.

Or an excuse to live with things that never happen.


<asbestos on>
Personally I'm inclined to say "intellectually stupid", but that's
unfair; they probably only look and act stupid.
</asbestos on>

<self reminder>
People don't understand hyperbole - they are unable to determine what is
true and what is not, or even work out that you're using an exagerrated
</self reminder>
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That a face that at first was ghostly
Turned a whiter shade of pale....

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org