Re: Enough is Enough

[terry@albert.animats.net]

On 28 Sep, Joshua Drake {aka Poet} wrote:

> We understand that everyone is frustrated with the LDP. We understand
> that people are unhappy with the way things are going. This is why all
> but one of the maintainers of the LDP are new.

I don't think everyone is frustated with the LDP. I think a minority
were and are. I think most authors were just happy with the nice quiet
status quo.

> Now... that said, lets not continue this, let us start on a productive
> route of recovery for the LDP.

A refocussing on the actual problems that started this whole mess might
help. Just what are the problems being solved and how serious were they?

The only problem that I recall there being any concensus (you know,
where more than an arbitrary two people complained) was that of the
online publishing/distribution process. Greg/Tim were a one-man show
driving a manual process that inevitably resulted in delays
occasionally. These delays caused enough inconvenience to authors that
it became burdensome for them and the verbalised the issue.

Outside of that, what problems were there? Everything else I recall:
LDP profile, document standards, management of out-of-date documents,
translation coordination, web site issues, CVS, overall document
coordination, standardised licensing, etc. were wish list items.

I suggest focussing on the process problem. Get that working. With one
run on the board there'll be some confidence gained. Select a 'next
most important issue' and tackle that.

What I see happening at the moment is an attempt to solve all sorts of
problems with only enough resource engaged to make weak attempts. All
that will do is annoy people who see these as backward steps.

It should be evident that very few of the LDP authors participate in
these discussions. I'm quite sure (correct me if I'm wrong people) that
on the whole that is because they're too busy to engage too heavily,
but do keep a casual eye on what is happening. Given this, it's
unreasonable to expect much feedback, so limiting what you're asking
for feedback on might achieve better results.

Joshua,
You, as content administrator for the new web site must be especially
careful. What seems like an opportunity for you to express an idea
becomes a change of face for the LDP. Every little change that gets
made is reflected in mirrors around the world. The web site is the place
that is most likely to generate contoversy, much more than anything that
happens on this mailing list.

There is no point coming here saying "blame me and me alone". What
makes it onto the web site, the core team will be blamed for (if blame
is to be assigned). It's the primary face of the LDP, and something the
core team ought to be held responsible for.

regards
Terry

-- 
terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au



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