On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Ian Murdock wrote: > BTW, I like the way their manual is set up and on the web. And I > also like that it seems more geared to open contributions than the > Debian manual. > > Hmm.. Well, I did release a draft of the manual in July so that the > Project could contribute. I've received exactly two patches to date. > Due to lack of interest, I never released an updated interim draft, > and I'm still in the process of getting ready to release the final > draft. What, exactly, have I done to discourage "open contributions"?
If I might offer a general comment here without it being taken as confrontational, I think the general linux and LDP models have worked better than the debian model has. As I perceive it, the linux and LDP models have been to make "best current effort" releases continually available, with known shortcomings acknowledged in a highly visible fashion alongside requests for help, info, contrbutions (e.g., in the LDP publications, numerous sections unashamedly labeled as just a guess, or still in progress, or yet unwritten, or as needing input). For those able and motivated to contribute, this has highlighted areas where contributions would be useful. For those not in those categories, the portions which were more finished were useful, even if the total work was unfinished. The debian model, OTOH, has been to keep everything pretty private until the development team, or its key members, judged things good enough to make public. I think we might have made faster progress with a more open model. This might be a bit harsh WRT the distribution itself. Too much open input can lead to a lot of haggling over diverse viewpoints on this or that alternative (not that we haven't had a bit of that anyhow). However, I think that perhaps it might be useful to make the documentation public in a less-than perfect state, formatted so that it's easy to identify mostly-finished and mostly-unfinished areas.