Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/18/05 20:17 CST: > If an editor makes a judgment that someone thinks is not appropriate for > some reason, either technical or opinion, then by all means let's > discuss it here. If they are not sure of an issue, that too should be > discussed.
Unfortunately, this has not been proven to be effective. There was an issue raised when an Editor alphabetized Chapter 12 "Programming". It was suggested by someone in the community that the way it was, where the packages were listed in dependency order, was better. *Everyone* who responded to the suggestion that it be put back the way it was agreed, except for the Editor who made the change. And it is still this way to this day. So, my point being that Editor decisions, that are contrary to technical accuracy should be discussed first, so that there is at least a record that the community decided one way was best, but an individual Editor determined that his decision, and not the communities, was the way it should be. And, actually, the community's decision should much more account for the direction of things than one individual Editor. At least that is how I look at the BLFS project (as a whole). -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 20:28:01 up 85 days, 5:52, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.72, 1.05 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
