new layout for the book (Gerard?)

James Robertson jwrober at
Mon Jan 12 09:06:47 PST 2004

Bill's LFS Login wrote:

> 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.

I think we all never came to a good solid agreement.  If a decision 
needs to be made on this kind of stuff then it needs to be presented in 
a better format.  The list is fine, but all the decision points are 
burried in text paragraphs which is dificult to "vote" on.  My comments 
were about the TOC along with some other folks.  I would not apply the 
patches to the HEAD branch.  Maybe on the new xml branch.  We are 
thinking about releasing a 5.1 update and this is not a good fit for that.
> 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
> done.
> 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.

This all comes down to communication and a decision tree.  If we are to 
continue, we _need_ to get this solved soon.  If Gerard is OK with us 
making decisions about the book without him, then we need a semi-formal 
if not approved decision plan on who(m) can make such decisions.  In a 
community driven project like this, we need consensus of some kind (not 
100% for sure) on discussion points.  Many of the changes like what Greg 
has been up to are no brainers.  He is doing an excellent job of keeping 
the book current.  Bigger talking points like Kernel 2.6.0, structural 
changes like Alex's, major package changes, toolchain and the like need 
a better way to be handled.  I suggested earlier that we use Bugzilla to 
help in some way, but that is only a tool.  We need a management process 
before we can have a tool.

Also, as much as I like what Alex is trying to do, it is not on the 
roadmap or "seen" by any of the other editors and detracts from the 
things we all have decided to work on.  If anything, it should be 
included with the XML redesign as I think it is a good fit there.  This 
is probably one of the reasons why "it got lost" in the shuffle.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list