zeps at ihug.com.au
Wed Jul 14 06:48:18 PDT 2004
Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Zeplin said the following on 14-07-2004 13:01:
>> Your attempt to discredit it as a valid medium for stable book
>> conversations/changes is flawed
> We should be careful to not turn this into a IRC bad/good discussion.
> The established practice, one on which LFS is built, is that the
> mailinglists are the primary method of book development and discussion.
> This is established partly through convention, and partly through
> fitness for purpose. It's main strengths (a-synchronous communication &
> archiving of discussion threads) are exactly what's missing in IRC.
> I'm not saying that IRC is therefore bad, but for *stable* book decision
> making, discussion and development, it's less ideal (mostly because it
> requires people to be online at the same time and it's archiving is
> either non-existent or non-threaded).
Its come to my attention that my post with a solution was ignored, And
when i asked for some kind of solution, All that could be talked about
was irc. Great way to avoid real problems.
Great way to increase the confidence in the current system.
A true show of ignorance.
A great show of wasting time.
All this has boiled down to nothing. Nothing changes, No confidence is
restored, And the Cycle begins again.
More information about the lfs-dev