making review/bug filing optional for some docs changes

[Shane H. W. Travis]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:

> Myk Melez wrote:
> > 	travis:	myk: that way also lies
> > resentment, however. Based on discussion on the developers@ list, I
> > would bet that Gerv would think that he deserves Trusted Docs Hacker
> > status. Based on the response to his suggestions, others do not.
>
> Which suggestions have I made which have been so badly received that
> they mark me out as someone not to be trusted to update docs without review?

/me sighs

Myk asked my permission before he put this log up, specifically because of
this comment. I asked him if he thought that it would cause controversy and
detract from the main point he was making, and he said that he did not think
it would. I wasn't sure, but I said to go ahead.

I wish his hopes had been right, and not my fears.


> I seem to remember making a suggestion almost exactly like Myk's - that
> people (specifically me, but it could have been anyone) be allowed to do
> documentation whackage without review.

... and how was it received? Memory says that it was not looked on as a
favourable idea. I know that my reasons for opposition were philosophical
and not personal (as they are this time with Myk's proposal) but my
recollection is that some specific personal points came up during the
discussion, which was the basis of the above comment. If my memory is
faulty, I apologize.


Myk is trying to ask if the concept of Trusted Docs Hacker (or Trusted Code
Hacker) is a good idea at all. My opinion is that it is not. Most of my
objections are included in the log itself, and I'll restate them again when
I have time to do so. I wanted to get this written quickly in the hopes of
preventing things from getting off the original topic.

Shane H.W. Travis       | The greatest of all mistakes is to do nothing
travis at sedsystems.ca    |  because you can only do a little.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan |   Do what you can.  -- Sydney Smith