Rene Rivera wrote:
I think that's a bit too melodramatic ;-)
It is ;-) for a good reason: to show how passionate I am on having a freedom of choice. It's really not about which design is better, it's about freedom to choose which one, one prefers and it's also about collaboration and cooperation when unity is desired. When unity is prefered, collaboration must ensue. There *was* collaboration on the current boost book design, FWIW. There is none in the proposed design. IMO, that's very wrong. True, collaboration is difficult. There's always the risk of the "design by committee" syndrome. However, I argue that in some cases (e.g. if it involves works by several people), we cannot have an easier shortcut. With all due respect, I may try to reply to some more of your statements, but IMO, they are off on a tangent. I am/was questioning 1) the very rationale for creating a new design *for the docs* (not the site in whole) in the first place and 2) the process we must follow when we introduce design changes. I tried to be as accomodating as I possibly can. Jeez, I withdrew all objections except one! Still, you take that with tons of resistance. Is that indicative of things to come? I dunno. I am tired, so I'll choose to be silent instead. I leave it up to you guys to conclude this matter. I've said my piece. I've said enough. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
