incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Clarifying facts
Date Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:43:28 GMT
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It was a WIKI PAGE and there was NO NEED to ensure it conformed
> to the standards of SITE DOCUMENTS.  You just decided to play
> the ass card again and there's one less active volunteer working
> on the wiki now as a result.
>

Of course, there is no reason why the wiki CANNOT conform to the site
style. If you followed the discussion from the start, it was clear
that the use of the wiki was merely a collaborative convenience.  It
was not intended to be there permanently.  If we want users to find
FAQ's then of course we'll put them were the other FAQ's are.

>
> The world isn't black and white Rob, there are shades of grey
> that you should start factoring in before you scare off more
> potential collaborators that don't see eye-to-eye with you.
> At Apache the "plays well with others" attribute trumps just
> about everything else, and you are missing that by a country
> mile again.
>

Simon hasn't gone anywhere, Joe. He'll be back in the morning.

>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose.  Remember,
>> FAQ's
>>>>  are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>>>>  Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>>>>  specific questions.
>>>
>>>  Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them
>> with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the
>> partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some
>> collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of
>> existing ones.  In school we had a different word for this.  We called
>> it "editing".  It would probably have been worth the effort to check
>> the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing
>> in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a
>> uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the
>> reader, etc.
>>
>> In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine.   If
>> there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption
>> was in error.  So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you
>> and not me,  and see if they can improve it even further.
>>
>> And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still
>> not answered on the wiki, then please speak up.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>  As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>>>
>>>  S.
>>

Mime
View raw message