[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Effective sharing of debian-related information

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:21:08PM +0100, Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote:
> 	I also think Debian (and this is left to the doc/www group I guess)
> should made a strong move towards this kind of efforts. Yes, the Debian
> FAQ-o-matic is nice, but it has not exploded like other media has.

Actually, our FAQ-O-Matic did explode, but in another sense ;) It's been

> 	mailing list -> slashdot-like community -> unofficial/development
> documentation -> official documentation.
> a) talk with debianhelp to have them be http://www.debian.org/help,
> maybe bring the resources to our machines?

On the other hand, maybe it's not so smart to integrate everything on our
machines, because our machines and the bandwidth they are using are already
under plenty of strain, and it's all a donation. Besides, if we can use
several donations more efficiently, why not? :) The "official" branding
doesn't really matter for an online forum where everyone can post anything
they want.

The recent (and not so recent) development of Debian community and
decentralization of the content is not at all a bad thing, IMHO. In a way,
it clearly shows that it's not necessary for Debian supporters to stick
together like some weird sect.

I do feel it's important to keep the links between the sites, and I think
we have a fair number of links to external Debian-related sites, and that we
can improve on that...

> b) talk to linuxcare for them to be
> http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/summary

That's kt.zork.net now, actually. And what about their other summaries,
other than Debian and Debian-Hurd?

> Build up our own slashcode box for w.d.o/help or w.d.o/community. 
> This brings up a problem with mirrors, however, due to the fact that there
> should be only one place to update/contribute to this information. Mirrors
> should only have static information.

That too...

Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

Reply to: