Aach, no sleep for the wicked this darkling eve ... at least not for me. or morning, whatever.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:57:41AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > Good point :-) I hope NM can be improved as well. I've got someone that > I know will help the Alpha port that's still in process after several > months now, but it's like molasses flowing uphill in winter to get him > finally in the project. I hope so too! > > a. Assign more people to process applications - kind of > > self-explanatory. > > Not to stir anything up, here, but, to the NM team, what exactly is "the > process" for dealing with NM applications? I've tried to stay away from > politics mostly, but I've always been curious about this. I know it > involves a phone call, getting ID proof, and getting their key signed, but > other than that, I'm clueless. To help streamline it, is it something > that (technically) any of us can do if we know the person or are closer > geographically to them than the normal members of NM? Good Question. Takers? > > b. Establish at least two teirs of contribution - people who are > > interested in helping with less technical aspects need not be subjected to > > the same screening process as package maintainers. So if, for example > > somebody says "hey, could I help with paperwork or the website or > > something ?" they can be easily accepted to work on something. Voluteering > > should not be a full time job. > > We get offers, but I kinda agree with the rest on this > issue. Documentation, IMO, is just as important as the software > itself. I know we don't always practice that principle, but we > should. To maintain docs on par with the quality of the software > releases, I'd personally feel more comfortable knowing that anyone that's > taking care of docs has the same knowledge/credentials/whatever that the > package maintainers do. That's a good point - at least as far as actual composition goes. But there are parts of the whole process of documenting that really don't require that much background; eg. general editing, grammar, style, putting things into formats, ie. general presentation. Sometimes somebody less knowledgable will have the best feedback - they are, after all, the primary beneficiaries. And what may be a clear description to a developer is not necessarily clear to a user. I happen to know an excellent technical writer that would be happy to pitch in but he knows very little about linux so ... > > c. (optimally) Rewrite the pages that explain how to apply and > > give a clearer and more complete description of tasks available and what > > level of expertise each requires. > > I'd like to see this as well, but lack the time to volunteer to improve > it. I've got enough tasks just keeping Alpha going, porting HURD to > Alpha, seeking a job (yes, I'm unemployed), keeping my wife from throwing > my computers off of the balcony, and keeping up with my Quake clan duties > :-P I also think that whatever it is that NM does while processing an > application should be documented (not per person, just in general...I > think applicants would like to know what the steps are that you're going > through while they wait). > > > d. (optimally) simplify the protocols for applying. > > Hmmm...expand on this, please...I'm not clear on what "protocols for > applying" means. Actually I was refering to what you just described - all of the steps involved in applying. It is very difficult to even gather what those steps are; seems like this could be consolidated and streamlined somewhat for at least some kinds of participation. Preferably any, although I understand the concern for quality. Still there is a point of diminishing returns with QA. > > Hahahaha...I ftp'ed the debs, but was wondering if there's a source > package around. I usually like to prod at stuff without installing it (I Its in CVS: pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/unilinux co ddoc - I think that is working now, haven't actually checked recently. cheers, Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]