[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New unofficial document - oamp.pdf
- To: misc@openbsd.org
- Subject: Re: New unofficial document - oamp.pdf
- From: Ben Morrow <imension@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 07:35:30 -0600
- DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=cLIF1g2eis3IQSfdjSTNVVRzd/dOOaVYh3TvaBpIbNg9y392wTjtScpSm0zpX7dUzUuR7bU0lXrRWxwnLDsOFZydC0Ql4qqYmZYdE12WAso/GPQC5MAlm2rUAhoZXXr3aco6ysbbDEtZLvJgG3qNL5JqVr36lnjsrHPO37jO2HE=
- References: <41D60406.50405@holland-consulting.net> <8f587f27050101032774fc8bc7@mail.gmail.com> <41D6B009.12076.639881@localhost>
<snip>
It's his flawed presentation, his assumptions about the openbsd community,
his un-researched arguments, his use of CAPITALS in SOME words, his
piss-poor apologies, when he's cornered and his snide thank you notes that
amuse and annoy me.
</snip>
I actually laughed at the CAPITALS in SOME words comment. Unlike Mark,
your arguments/comments make sense.
Also, the second I saw "unofficial document..", I thought the exact
same thing you did..
Oh no, not this thread again !!
*sigh* it's pathetic that reading the misc list can be amusing. I need a life.
Ben
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:13:29 +0100, klausmattner@gmx.de
<klausmattner@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2005 at 12:27, Mark Farquaad wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > OpenBSD does not. The only thing OpenBSD provides is
> > your (new) link, telling people in about 200 ways what you
> > don't want, what they must comply to, etc. etc.
> > Honestly: Do you think your link:
> > http://www.holland-consulting.net/obsd/faq-help.html
> > would motivate ANYONE to put in work?
>
> [snip]
>
> I consider quality the most important attribute of an _official_
> FAQ.
>
> Having read Nick's text at least twice it seems to be obvious
> that most of it is based on long term experience I am not
> really jealous of.
>
> Being forced to follow the rules given there should not
> demotivate anybody who seriously wants to contribute to a
> high quality FAQ.
>
> It is very obvious that the "required structure change" you
> mentioned consists of one "instance" mostly:
>
> People who are willing to be a "filter" between
> a) Nick (who ensures quality) and
> b) people who want to contribute but do not want to follow
> the _necessary_ rules.
>
> It is as easy as that.
>
> Find people who are willing to correct and/or improve
> contributions made by others who are not able and/or
> willing to follow the rules and you have it.
>
> Please note that this activity might be somewhat similar
> to reviewing class tests written by pupils who do not
> care much about their marks.
>
> Go and ask teachers if they would do that for free.
> I doubt it.
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Klaus