Well, putting it gently you have a good product and one of (maybe, the) worst manual on earth describing it. You cant argue that as a volunteer effort you depend on volunteers, because you have volunteers willing and wanting to put their backs to the wheel to improve your manual, e.g., http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2014-09/msg00000.html. My question is why dont you use these ready hands or why dont we see their result?
Lest you think that I wail at others without efforts of myself, let me say nay. I am trying to help as best I can by rewriting all of Section 15 Support for test suites. But I don't know Tex/LaTex/Texinfo and my efforts are restricted to Open Office/Adobe PDF and Open Office generated LaTex files - and others have commented on their inadequacy, http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2015-04/msg00026.html. My forte is in ungrammatical sentences and misspellings (until I grow up and edit the text), but a very rough draft of my own efforts is given in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2015-04/msg00028.html. So even the weakest of your readers is trying to help. Section 15 of your document has grammatical errors, errors in logic and errors in organization, see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2015-03/msg00078.html. I have been asked whether I will/will not include a patch to fix the items, see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2015-03/msg00087.html. The quick answer is "as best I can I will include material". Will anyone of the Automake developers accept it or support me in providing a patch in a manner acceptable to the Automake community? Just a question. My fondest hope is that the comments of others, as well as myself, are taken to heart and that you begin to solicit or perform needed document changes. art Maintenance turns design into chaos
