CVS usage guidelines

[Stuart Ellis]

On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 09:37 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> 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" ;-)

My thesaurus gets Sundays off :)

> 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.

I've amended the Process Flow section of the Wiki page to make this
proposal more concrete.

Doing that I realised that we don't have sections for:

a) Removing CVS access (by request of the contributor, or without it).
b) Transferring maintainership of documents in CVS.

To keep versioning clean I've just edited for the suggestion I gave.