draft notice text

tuxxer tuxxer at cox.net
Wed Sep 15 23:34:21 UTC 2004

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 20:52, Tammy Fox wrote:
> I was about to add the common draft notice file from bug #132415, but I
> wanted to discuss the wording of the notice a bit more. (This was
> discussed on the Hardening Doc Preview thread, but I am starting a new
> one with a more appropriate subject.)
> The text proposed for the note is as follows:
> <note>
>   <title>Draft Notice</title>
>   <para>This version of this document is not yet affiliated with the Fedora Docs
>     Project.  It is a draft, and may be submitted to the project for
>     review/approval at a later date.  Until that time, that document will
>     be receiving constant updates, and may change frequently.
>   </para>
> </note>
> Saying that it isn't affliliated with the Fedora Docs Project might be
> misleading. It is being worked on for the project, but it isn't final
> yet. Also, it would be nice to tell readers how to help with the
> document if they are reading it. So, how about the following:
> <note>
>   <title>DRAFT</title>
>   <para>
>     This is a draft version of the document. It is subject to change    
>     at any time and may not have been tested for technical accuracy 
>     yet. If you find any errors, please report them via Bugzilla in bug 
>     &BUG-NUM;.
>   </para>
> </note>
> Then, in the parent file, the entity &BUG-NUM; would a link to the
> Bugzilla entry for that document.
> Thoughts?
> Tammy

I like the idea of the bugzilla reference.  However, (in defense of my
original draft [no pun intended]) IMHO a document isn't part of the FDP
unless it's been committed to CVS (or is hosted or referenced by RedHat
or Fedora).  Would I be wrong in making this assumption?  Nor is it in
any way affiliated (other than by the author's "loyalty") with the
project if it is hosted somewhere *other* than a RedHat/Fedora
"official" site.  Just from the little bit that I've seen since I've
been here, this is not the general practice, nor is this functionality
even available (I'm hosting my hardening "preview" on my own webspace
[well.....my ISPs, but you get the idea]).  I guess the point that I'm
making here is this:  A document is not part of the official
documentation until it is fully "culled into the fold" of the FDP, e.g.
accepted by the community and committed to CVS and/or hosted by

How about a blend of the two approaches:

	<title>Draft Notice</title>
	<para>This document is a draft.  It is being developed for and/or by the $FDP;
		community and is intended to be submitted as official documentation.  
		It is subject to change at any time and may not have been tested for 
		technical accuracy. If you find any errors, please report them via Bugzilla
		in bug &BUG-NUM;.

This closely resembles Tammy's proposal, but still implies that it has
not been "blessed" by the community and, while it is still in draft
form, is owned by the author (and not yet part of the official

I don't mean to go off of the deep-end here.  But (unless I missed
something in the process) only those that are employed by RedHat are
bound by any type of intellectual property rights (maybe not even
then).  So unless "volunteers" are going to be given certain "rights and
privileges" (i.e. devel-cvs access, "preview" webspace, etc.), there's
no obligation on the part of the author to develop and/or submit the
document to/with the project.

I don't mean to be antagonistic, I DO want to contribute to the
community.  But I guess the point I am ultimately making is, my words
are my words, until I say (or it is mutually agreed upon) that they are
NOT just *my* words.  

The statement above (my proposed ammendment) implies, and/or states that
it is not yet part of the official documentation, yet states intent, and
therefore should be less misleading than the original text.  I believe
that also gives the community (and editors, and RedHat) a lot more
"say-so" in the final presentation of that document.

Otherwise, why even put any emphasis on the Project's "methods"?  Why
not write a document (in whatever format) and submit it?

Just my 2 ...... ok, maybe .... 3 cents.  ;)



tuxxer <tuxxer(a)cox(dot)net>

     <== tuxxer's gpg key fingerprint ==>
57EB F948 76AE 25BC E340  EFA9 FAF6 E1AC F1E1 1EA1
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20040915/6ecb6cb1/attachment.bin 

More information about the docs mailing list