Randy McMurchy wrote: <snip /> Positive support for Jeremy... > > If you mean that, then you won't go. Plain and simple. >
+1. Well said Randy. I also do not know who Richard meant, but I didn't take it to be about Jeremy either. Now, forwards please... We have had many great comments and suggestions from many people. The following is all IMHO and suggestions. It is not meant to sound like instructions. Just in case someone else grabs the stick the wrong way round ;-) Perhaps one of the "senior" editors and/or Gerard should try and aggregate those suggestions into manageable "tasks" and create some working groups for each. Discussion can and should continue on-list and in-public but results/working docs etc should probably go on the wiki. Here's my suggestion for some of the initial tasks * PM (This is very a technical issue and an emotive one, probably one of the most important too as it may affect everything that follows in LFS-NG) * Presentation (How we deliver/provide LFS-NG to the community, e.g. Book, Dynamic web based, LMS, local machine-based application? More than one?) * Structure (The modular courseware approach, or something else?) I would think that once these areas are pretty stable, the decisions about what a core LFS build looks like, what parts of BLFS/CLFS and whatever else needs to go into it, should be relatively painless. Perhaps some simple poll or voting system on the Wiki for areas of contention be set-up and some basic rules about voting decided before we start? (Having been closely following the MSOOXML fiasco, let's not look like ISO please?) And, anyone who blogs, should start blogging about this too. I will be writing a piece in the next day or so. Generate some more traffic to the project, get some fresh ideas, hopefully contributors too... blah, blah, blah... Al -- The way out is open! http://www.theopensourcerer.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
