Diana, after the committer-developers almost unanimously approved your contributions they are now trying to stifle them. To me this seems silly... You are trying to turn something amatuer into something professional. It does not seem that the developers actually want this??
run while you can... This is going to be an up-hill battle... best, -Rob David Crossley wrote: >I too am concerned about the number of hoops that an >author would need to jump through. I prefer the idea about >using CVS scratchpad. I see troubles with having loops of >submit-to-an-editor => editor-review => back-to-author >and then CVS commit at the very end. > >If we do not use CVS during the drafting, then how >will document authors/editors/QA-testers ever be able >to see and discuss the documents? I would not be happy >if the process involved sending email attachments around >to each other and remembering to Cc, etc. > >Also, Diana's step 16 introduces a bottleneck at >the co-ordinator end. > >>16. Author submits patches (or revised docs to >>document coordinator) when updates are necessary. >> >This should follow the normal Bugzilla process, whereby >diffs are submitted with a [PATCH] subject line, >and any committer who is paying attention picks it >up and commits it to CVS. > >2278ng a well-documented procedure for docs >authoring/updating and well-designed document shells >for HOWTOs etc. will keep the process constrained. > >--David > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
