Re: md5sum passwords
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.
Reply to: