Clearing things off and getting going - again...

[Alan Lord]

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/3/3, Alan Lord <alanslists at gmail.com>:
>>  * PM (This is very a technical issue and an emotive one, probably one of
>>  the most important too as it may affect everything that follows in LFS-NG)
> 
> I am very surprised the nobody replied to my mail with the subject
> "RPM: proof of concept".
<snip />

Personally, it's a bit over my head, sorry. ;-). Also, I have a purely 
emotional bias against RPM. Give me anything else but RPM. (And don't 
ask me why... I tried Redhat some time ago and didn't like RPM. I use 
Ubuntu daily and think apt far superior. But whether it is right for LFS 
or not is *not* something I feel able to comment on. Yet.)

> 
>>  * Presentation (How we deliver/provide LFS-NG to the community, e.g.
>>  Book, Dynamic web based, LMS, local machine-based application? More than
>>  one?)
> 
> I think that a "local machine-based application" option is the worst
> of them all. Reason: it is the least reliable, and the only one that
> doesn't allow easy changes of the presentation. For me, LFS must stay
> as "data" from the user's viewpoint, not "data+program", because bugs
> in the program will prevent the use of the data, and the reader is
> supposed to be able to discard or fix wrong data, but not fix errors
> in a program. Think about the recently reported jhalfs breakage in
> French locales as an example. No program, no bugs in it.

Totally agree. +n (n=as many as possible)

>>  * Structure (The modular courseware approach, or something else?)
> 
> This can only be defined after deciding about the target audience(s).

Probably you are right, although making it modular means that it "should 
(This should be a "must" thinking about it more) be possible for the 
more experienced user to skip the early sections. That's my thought 
about it anyway.

>>  Perhaps some simple poll or voting system on the Wiki for areas of
>>  contention be set-up and some basic rules about voting decided before we
>>  start? (Having been closely following the MSOOXML fiasco, let's not look
>>  like ISO please?)
> 
> IMHO, voting should be used only as a last-resort method to come to an
> agreement, because the minority's opinion is completely ignored.
> Polls, on the other hand, are a good method to throw away options that
> nobody likes.
> 

Good point. A last resort solution is fine by me (But when do we decide 
that we are at that point?). A consensus is usually the best outcome, 
however we have already seen some of the personalities on here getting 
rather bruised or inflated. At least a vote - on a particular 
proposal/decision - reduces it to a solely numbers game...

Al

-- 
The way out is open!
http://www.theopensourcerer.com