On 1/8/06, Peter Seibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For starters, you should probably adjust that page to follow the > organization pattern of:
Done, thanks for the suggestion. > To the actual content, I'd like to see more concrete ideas about how > you're going to proceed. Let me know if the current task - 'pick a doc tool, run it on itself and one other package, review it' - is a little more concrete. Btw, i'm not trying to be funny with the 'argue about policy' task; I really think that's pretty much what will (needs to) happen, if anything. > You can also talk > about any resources you need so we can see if we can help out--for > instance if you want, we can host sample documentation on > lispniks.com in the early stages and full documentation there later, > if that makes sense. I'd rather the gardeners be a clearinghouse for getting documentation improvements back to the author. I think we should only host documentation if an author has abandoned the package. That said, a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address to funnel doc requests / author interaction might be useful at some point. > Another way to put this (which applies to all project proposals) is > that I'll be more likely to give a +1 to a project that says, we're > going to start with small concrete step X and then figure out the > next best thing to do, than one that says, first we're going to > figure out a grand plan for steps 1-20 of this project. Not that your > proposal is quite as extreme as that. The tasks arent supposed to be linear; I think the 'argue about grand plan' can be worked out as we try stuff - this is lisp after all. > Anyway, this is a good start, if you can make it a bit more concrete > and attract a couple volunteers I'll be happy to give it a +1. Sweet - any takers for volunteering? I'd be real interested to hear someone's take on the SBCL tools and TINAA . . . _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
