new layout for the book (Gerard?)

James Robertson jwrober at
Thu Jan 8 18:55:43 PST 2004

Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
>>Hi Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational. You said the following on 01/09/04
>>>>From a recent post in another thread, I *think* he may be only seriously
>>>looking at things that are cc'd to him ATM (started new job I gather and
>>>has been pressed for time). So I suggest that you cc him.
>>And seeing that we now have enough developers to move forward without
>>Gerard, we should do so. The change was discussed on the lists and if it
>>is approved by the other developers, you should feel free to commit the
> I agree. I recall the thread, but not whether there was substantial
> agreement. If there was, I think we only need to *inform* G.(cc) that it
> will be done *with* more-than-adequate-lead-time to allow him to object
> if desired. The only difference in this and other types of changes is
> its size and a major shift in "style" (well, some sections).
>>Bill, is something like this in the manifesto?
> No. Doesn't belong there (at least until it has a policy section). The
> edit team's statement could contain something about this in it's
> policies (don't know yet).
> But I can say that the impetus behind the org setup included avoidance
> of delays when G. or others were not available. So I stick my neck out
> and suggest the following.
> If the editors will get together and review/confirm the posts and
> determine that there was *substantial* agreement by most that it should
> be applied, they should *schedule* its introduction into CVS.
> Post to G. the anticipated date and a URL to the new contents (he
> probably would have to search for the original, I know I would). Try to
> allow 3-4 days (maybe excessive, but can't hurt).
> If he does not post an objection, apply it and everyone proceeds working
> the new stuff.
> I suggest that one of the editors volunteer to coordinate a summary
> and decision process.

I would also add that if "votes" is in question, we could use Bugzilla 
to do that.  it has a voting feature by bug.  Open a bug and tell all 
the editors to vote for it or not.  when consenses is reached, close it. 
  Make sure to make it depend on anything it needs to depend on.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list