new layout for the book (Gerard?)

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at
Sun Jan 11 10:57:11 PST 2004

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Matthew Burgess wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:42:26 +0100
> Alex Groenewoud <alex at> wrote:
> > Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> > > 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 change.

Therein is the problem, AFAICT. See below.

> >
> > It appears I do not have CVS write access.  If any of the other
> > editors feels like making the change, I've uploaded two bzipped
> > patches that apply cleanly to the CVS state of an hour or so ago.
> > Greg, Matthew, Jeremy?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Alex
> Alex, I'll apply the patch if you can point me to the right point in the
> archives whereby the majority of editors agreed on this.

Bearing in mind Alex's connectivity situation, I perused the Nov/Dec
archives looking for relevant threads. See below.

> I'm not saying
> your work isn't welcome, I just haven't looked at it personally and want
> to make sure that it's not gonna have to be reverted.

The most relevant thread, AFAICT, began here.

Replies from some editors and others, including Anderson, Bill, Kevin,
James R., Richard, Jeremy, Tushar, Greg, Archaic. As is common on this
list, the original topic got left behind (not a complaint, just
observation) and I can't see any conclusive decision.

The overall response is that everybody seemd to see a lot of positives
and would like something limilar (or exactly what was proposed) to get

However, discussion of Richard's doc stuff got mixed in and the thread
eventually died the usual "death of lack of focus". Too bad, two
(apparently) good sets of ideas were in there.

I presume you all saw my post proposing that one of the editor's coord a
summary and decision-making process. It still seems a good idea to me.

I have now accomplished the first step. I leave the rest to the editors.
I *assume* this would be *their* job.

As an interested community member, I will suggest that if the editors
agree that Alex's proposals merit inclusion, get on with the job. Then
use that foundation to work in (links to?) Richard's stuff and keep
other activities going. Let's not let this die of inattention if it
merits inclusion in the book.

Alex's originally posted to Gerard on 12/18 here

Being near the holidays (and, we now know, Gerard being apparently in
transition) may have caused a substantial delay in reply from Gerard.

But that time is now past, we hope.

> Best regards,
> Matt.

NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Bill Maltby
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list