MJ Ray <email@example.com> writes: > Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> That's total bullshit. If they would really care about joining, they >> could simply start to read the documentation, which explicitly shows >> them how to understand the term maintainer and/or developer. > That's total bullshit. Do you read all documentation which seems > irrelevant to the task you're trying to do? No, but if I have problem, I read the documentation that applies to my case. I think if you're unsure if the NM process is right for you, reading the documentation for the NM process is a good idea. And, if you're still unsure, you can ask the relevant people. If *you* think that this documentation is irrelevant for the NM process, you're free to submit patches. Until then, I'd prefer if you would not reply in a purely polemic way, as your contribution to actually solve the problem isn't identifiable. > If you really cared about the project, you could simply start to talk > to prospective developers and try to understand why they're not > joining. I did, but I'm not sending status reports about private conversations. Anyway, I know what (some) people doing documentation and/or translation work have perceived as problem - in my rewrite of the NM docs, I tried to bear in mind what had been criticized before, as the old version didn't speak about tasks beside package maintainance before. This has changed. Naturally, those docs are mainly speaking about the NM process as applicant doing packaging work. The reason for this is quite simple - more than 95% of the people expressing their wish to join do packaging work. > Not really a helpful reply style, is this? Yep, you haven't been helpful at all. Marc -- BOFH #374: Its the InterNIC's fault.
Description: PGP signature