Re: Source Overview

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Daniel Ouellet
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 4:51 pm

> I simply requested the account on that persons system because I offered to

You are not the only one with limited time. Sorry for the late reply, 
but also I wanted to provide details as to why.

Your text was:

"If you provide me an account and if everyone is OK sending me minimally
formatted TODO lists I will gladly be the point of contact and maintain that
list.

What qualifies as minimally formatted?

1) Each item on a separate line prepended with a *.
2) (OPTIONAL) If you want, order them by importance.

I will attempt to clean-up grammar and spelling.
"

The short of it is that in it if you look at it. It add more work to the 
developers by asking them to send in stuff. They already have it done 
for some. So, why duplicate the list. It will just get out of sync and 
obsolete very soon. Plus they have a list, so I think the most logical 
and efficient way to do it would be just like this:

1. Name

2. Very short blurb for area the todo cover

3. URL to the developers list.

And that's it.

Nothing more is needed. Frankly if a developer spend time making a todo 
list and publish it, then it must be some what maintain when ever they 
have time. Asking to add more management to track it and maintain yet an 
additional list is wrong in my book. Plus I am still not convince it's 
helpful, but never the less I would sure be welcome to be proven wrong.

The only think that this gives me as an idea that may have some merit is 
that a list of user group might be good to have and I can add that to 
the site. But again, that should be as minimal as possible.

City, state or province, country, language and URL to the site for the 
group. If no URL, then some details could be added and that may actually 
get some usage may be.

But keeping the time needed to maintain anything like this is a plus and 
not required any more from the developers have to be the goal. But 
again, I am not sure it's even good, but like I said, I am not oppose 
to. Like everyone else I have very little time and I didn't reply 
before, nor this morning to your email at 5:32AM when I saw it at 7:30 
AM EST as I just finish an other project and I do need to get some sleep 
sometime as little as it might be and I have some kind of a life too and 
kids to take care of as well.

So, sorry for the delay.

Like I said, I am not doing a perfect job and I will admit that, but I 
try. Better then most anyway that asked and do nothing.

I will continue off list for the rest as there is no point on doing it here.

I already saved the email from Alexandre Ratchov for his list that he 
sent to misc@. Just didn't have time to post it yet, but it will.

Now I need to go feed the kids, so more delay on my part.

Best,

Daniel
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Source Overview, Theo de Raadt, (Wed Apr 21, 11:35 am)
Re: Source Overview, Simon Perreault, (Wed Apr 21, 11:41 am)
Re: Source Overview, Adam M. Dutko, (Wed Apr 21, 11:49 am)
Re: Source Overview, Daniel Ouellet, (Wed Apr 21, 4:51 pm)
Re: Source Overview, Adam M. Dutko, (Wed Apr 21, 5:47 pm)
Re: Source Overview, Pete Vickers, (Wed Apr 21, 11:05 pm)
Re: Source Overview, Daniel Ouellet, (Thu Apr 22, 4:14 am)
Re: Source Overview, Claudio Jeker, (Thu Apr 22, 4:40 am)
Re: Source Overview, Owain Ainsworth, (Thu Apr 22, 4:44 am)
Re: Source Overview, Lars Nooden, (Thu Apr 22, 4:56 am)
Re: Source Overview, Chris Bennett, (Thu Apr 22, 5:46 am)
Re: Source Overview, Daniel Ouellet, (Thu Apr 22, 1:47 pm)
Re: Source Overview, Daniel Ouellet, (Sun Apr 25, 3:21 pm)
Re: Source Overview, Daniel Ouellet, (Sun Apr 25, 3:24 pm)
Re: Source Overview, Daniel Ouellet, (Sun Apr 25, 3:57 pm)
Re: Source Overview, Adam M. Dutko, (Sun Apr 25, 7:30 pm)