Hello
First, many thanks for your work!
Sounds good. As long as it is an DFSG license, i am fine.Hi team, Seeing the book is catching up (https://rust-team.pages.debian.net/book/ if you didn't know), I'd like to ask you to help formalize some aspects of it. == Licensing Content of the book is not entirely new: the policy section is copied over from the [wiki], mainly written by Josh Triplett and Ximin Luo (thus sending to you); the packaging process (for single crates) from readme.rst in the debcargo-conf repo, mainly written by Ximin Luo and Sylvestre Ledru (thus sending to you); the rust_hacks.md document also in the dc-c repo, mainly by Matthias Geiger (thus sending to you); with occasional contributions from a few others. There was, however, no clear licensing on any of them, AFAICT. They seem to have been written and shared on a "being useful" ground. I took them into the book for the same purpose. Now that we have a concentrated documentation effort, I'd like to ask for your opinions and permissions on a proper license of the book. I'd suggest CC-BY-SA-4.0 since it's documentation, not code (albeit some small examples in it).
== Editorial process Rust has a good tradition of well written documentation, we as a team dealing with Rust things should continue that tradition. Alas, well written means careful and thoughtful wording and thorough understanding of matters covered. We need a more or less formal editorial process, with reviews and proofreading. I propose we create an editor group for "quality assurance" and reviewing submitted changes, somewhat like maintainers of the book "package". Submitting changes is probably only feasible through merge requests, likewise questions/reports through issues, it's not a real package so no BTS. This might turn down some potential contributors that dislike salsa (it has CLIs, but).
Given that the team has been using salsa since the beginning, I
think we can make it a requirement and use it. We can't address
all needs from all users.
Cheers
Sylvestre