From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by ewsd; Tue Jul 28 13:43:37 EDT 2020 Received: (qmail 21201 invoked by uid 1001); 28 Jul 2020 10:43:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:43:28 -0700 From: Kurt H Maier To: 9front@9front.org Subject: Re: [9front] The 9 Documentation Project Message-ID: <20200728174328.GF61790@wopr> Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org References: <50F1013C-3970-432B-BEC3-C319E56B4073@stanleylieber.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: virtualized virtualized persistence-based table On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:37:44AM -0700, ori@eigenstate.org wrote: > > i think having a single gatekeeper rankles the foss sensibility, > > even of nobody is necessarily trying to pass anything through the gate > > at the moment. likewise, i think a premium is placed on officially > > stamped propaganda, as opposed to merely correct propaganda. > > I think that the FQA is one of the best things that happened > to plan 9 documentation in a long time, and I'm very happy > with how well it's maintained. I strongly agree. I don't see a need for FQA management to change. Other documentation efforts can happily live alongside it. I also think the current solution (cutting an ISO and a dash-1 pdf at the same time) is fine and I don't think it's too much to ask people to download a pdf if they want it on their system. There's no reason to integrate the FQA into the main source repo; it's just an hg clone away. khm