On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote: >. . . > So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource > model is still employed, yet there is initial quality control. >. . .
Following the opensource model, I think docs should be released as early as possible, with only minimal initial quality control but clearly flagged as "draft" or something. AND it must be very easy for all readers to give their feedback on the docs so that they can be improved. As opposed to code, docs are not easily declared "right" or "wrong", they can start "usable" and become "great" over time I think. Ideally readers should be able to add their comment directly on the docs pages, but as this is not possible today here I suggest the following mechanism, which would be easy to implement: a) each doc has a status attribute: draft, reviewed, reliable, etc. b) each doc has a unique ID c) something like this published at the top of each document (auto-generated from the "status" and "doc-id" attributes) document status: draft document id: 12.452 confidence level: this information has not been verified yet, please comment if you find mistakes in it send comments/corrections about this document to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "[doc-comments:12.452]" in subject line (include a "mailto" link for this and a link to a page that explains the docs feedback process) Provided this is compatible with the current plan for the docs publishing mechanism, I'd be willing to implement the necessary changes. -Bertrand --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
