CVS usage guidelines

[Tommy Reynolds]

Uttered Stuart Ellis <s.ellis at fastmail.co.uk>, spake thus:

> If somebody stumps up an actual piece
> of text then they've probably got the stick-at-it-ness to learn any
> technical skills they don't already have, and see the work through.
> Somebody without a real interest may disqualify themselves by simply not
> producing a draft, even when we don't impose any other barriers to
> entry.

(I think the word you're looking for is "tenacity" ;-)

This seems eminently reasonable to me.  Isn't every writer also working
on a screen play?

If folk with coordinate their interest ("I wanna write a document about
FOO") and then provide a draft document that is *peer reviewed* on the
list, then if an editor is willing to clean up the text, only then
should CVS be activated.

This doesn't seem to be setting the bar too high.  Actually participating in the activity should be the entry qualification more than good intentions.

Cheers!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-dsco-list/attachments/20050424/2d4f8cd3/attachment.sig>