221 lines
9.9 KiB
HTML
221 lines
9.9 KiB
HTML
<!-- MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
|
|
<!--X-Subject: QC draft -->
|
|
<!--X-From-R13: Uhlyurz Omane <thlyurzNbrvy.dp.pn> -->
|
|
<!--X-Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:13:25 -0400 (EDT) -->
|
|
<!--X-Message-Id: 19990910001209.A20181@victis.oeil.qc.ca -->
|
|
<!--X-Content-Type: multipart/signed -->
|
|
<!--X-Derived: pgp00002.pgp -->
|
|
<!--X-Head-End-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>QC draft</title>
|
|
<link rev="made" href="mailto:guylhem@oeil.qc.ca">
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
[<a href="msg00007.html">Date Prev</a>][<a href="msg00009.html">Date Next</a>][<a href="msg00003.html">Thread Prev</a>][<a href="msg00010.html">Thread Next</a>][<a href="maillist.html#00008">Date Index</a>][<a href="threads.html#00008">Thread Index</a>]
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-->
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
|
|
<h1>QC draft</h1>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><em>To</em>: LDP discuss <<A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org">ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Subject</em>: QC draft</li>
|
|
<li><em>From</em>: Guylhem Aznar <<A HREF="mailto:guylhem@oeil.qc.ca">guylhem@oeil.qc.ca</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Date</em>: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:12:09 +0200</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-cc</em>: recipient list not shown: ;</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-date</em>: 9 Sep 1999 22:13:19 -0000</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-from</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-message-id</em>: <nijEF.A.ypC._DD23@murphy></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
|
|
<pre>
|
|
Here's Alessandro work on QC.
|
|
|
|
I think we could use it as "QC manifesto"
|
|
|
|
******************************
|
|
|
|
There are two versions: the first includes the rationales behind any
|
|
paragraph and the second is just the rules (for people with little time
|
|
to read).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal for a Quality Control Group
|
|
|
|
Teams of the group are volunteers and being part of the group doesn't
|
|
reequire devoting any predefined amount of work to the QC
|
|
needs. People interested in being part of the QC group must withstand
|
|
approval of the LDP leader, upon presentation of a resume or other
|
|
self-supporting evicence. (Rationale: the quality-control group must
|
|
be quality-controlled as well; we must prevent unfair people to enter
|
|
the QC group in order to damage the LDP. Also, we must prevent
|
|
incompetent people to judge LDP authors, even if in good faith, as
|
|
that would damage the LDP anyways).
|
|
|
|
The QC people is subscribed to a closed mailing list. Every new LDP
|
|
document is forwarded to the list in source form, maybe by having the
|
|
list itself as a subscriber of ldp-submit. When a QC member wants to
|
|
review a document, the member must express this intention by sending a
|
|
"lock" message to the list, to inform other reviwers that the document
|
|
is already taken. In case of multiple replies, the first one is
|
|
effective (according the ID of the message within the mailing list),
|
|
unless the reviewers agree differently via private email. (Rationale:
|
|
the list must be kept low-traffic: we don't need another place for
|
|
discussion; on the other hand all reviewers should have direct access
|
|
to reviewable material without human intervention).
|
|
|
|
Submitted documents appear immediately in a "beta" area in the LDP ftp
|
|
site, maybe only in source form (sgml or whatever is agreed upon).
|
|
The QC group should approve the new document within one week; if no QC
|
|
approval arrives within a week, the document is moved to the normal
|
|
ftp areas anyway, like any "normal" document. (Rationale: the
|
|
information must be made availabe as soon as possible to the general
|
|
public, and the QC group cannot be allowed to slow release of the
|
|
documentation. The "beta" area allows information-eager people to
|
|
access to the latest and greatest independent of the QC week and the
|
|
possible extra delay before the document is moved to its proper
|
|
place. Compiling and mirroring all the output formats for those few
|
|
people would be an unneedeed waste of network resources).
|
|
|
|
The reviewer should sort any problem directly with the author, who is
|
|
prepared to be be responsive during the QC week. If an agreement can
|
|
not be reached, the document is either reviewed by another QC member
|
|
(releasing the lock on the QC list and allowing anothere week of
|
|
"beta" status) or the whole question is brought to the LDP leader or
|
|
HOWTO maintainer. (Rationale: personal criticism should not be
|
|
performed in public and the issues can usually sorted out
|
|
friendly. Sometimes, however, the author and reviewer may not come to
|
|
an agreement for a variety of reasons, including character
|
|
differences; in this case a second chance must be allowed).
|
|
|
|
The LDP leader and HOWTO maintainer are allowed to refuse a document,
|
|
if it was considered unacceptable by at least two QC people. This does
|
|
not prevent the author for releasing the document through other means,
|
|
it just won't be distributed as part of the LDP and using the LDP
|
|
resources. (Rationale: a negative judgement doesn't deny anyone the
|
|
right to speak, and this must be stated clearly before we are called
|
|
fascists or anything similar).
|
|
|
|
Documents that passed QC review will carry the QC note just after the
|
|
title. A document that gets no QC review within the allowed time will
|
|
be part of the LDP without the QC mark. The QC approval will refer to
|
|
a specific version of the document, and an unreviewed release will
|
|
still carry its QC approval for the last version that was
|
|
approved. (Rationale: the readership must benefit from QC, thus being
|
|
warned whenever a document has been reviewed and when it didn't. On
|
|
the other hand, the QC group can feel less compelled to review a new
|
|
revision of a document that was already QC'd but the readership must
|
|
know about that and adapt their confidence in the document
|
|
accordingly).
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Proposal for a Quality Control Group
|
|
|
|
Teams of the group are volunteers and being part of the group doesn't
|
|
reequire devoting any predefined amount of work to the QC
|
|
needs. People interested in being part of the QC group must withstand
|
|
approval of the LDP leader, upon presentation of a resume or other
|
|
self-supporting evicence.
|
|
|
|
The QC people is subscribed to a closed mailing list. Every new LDP
|
|
document is forwarded to the list in source form, maybe by having the
|
|
list itself as a subscriber of ldp-submit. When a QC member wants to
|
|
review a document, the member must express this intention by sending a
|
|
"lock" message to the list, to inform other reviwers that the document
|
|
is already taken. In case of multiple replies, the first one is
|
|
effective (according the ID of the message within the mailing list),
|
|
unless the reviewers agree differently via private email.
|
|
|
|
Submitted documents appear immediately in a "beta" area in the LDP ftp
|
|
site, maybe only in source form (sgml or whatever is agreed upon).
|
|
The QC group should approve the new document within one week; if no QC
|
|
approval arrives within a week, the document is moved to the normal
|
|
ftp areas anyway, like any "normal" document.
|
|
|
|
The reviewer should sort any problem directly with the author, who is
|
|
prepared to be be responsive during the QC week. If an agreement can
|
|
not be reached, the document is either reviewed by another QC member
|
|
(releasing the lock on the QC list and allowing anothere week of
|
|
"beta" status) or the whole question is brought to the LDP leader or
|
|
HOWTO maintainer.
|
|
|
|
The LDP leader and HOWTO maintainer are allowed to refuse a document,
|
|
if it was considered unacceptable by at least two QC people. This does
|
|
not prevent the author for releasing the document through other means,
|
|
it just won't be distributed as part of the LDP and using the LDP
|
|
resources.
|
|
|
|
Documents that passed QC review will carry the QC note just after the
|
|
title. A document that gets no QC review within the allowed time will
|
|
be part of the LDP without the QC mark. The QC approval will refer to
|
|
a specific version of the document, and an unreviewed release will
|
|
still carry its QC approval for the last version that was
|
|
approved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: <A HREF="http://www.linuxdoc.org">http://www.linuxdoc.org</A>
|
|
Clef PGP/PGP key: <A HREF="http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem">http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem</A>
|
|
Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca
|
|
Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca
|
|
</pre>
|
|
<p><a href="pgp00002.pgp" >PGP signature</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<ul><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="00010" href="msg00010.html">Re: QC draft</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> "Mr. Poet" <poet@linuxports.com></li></ul></li>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="00011" href="msg00011.html">Re: QC draft</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> P Jenner <psj@mustec.eu.org></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
|
|
<!--X-References-->
|
|
<!--X-References-End-->
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Prev by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg00007.html">Re: Local LDPs</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg00009.html">Re: QC draft</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Previous by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg00003.html">Gathering new HOWTOs?</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg00010.html">Re: QC draft</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Index(es):
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="maillist.html#00008"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="threads.html#00008"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|