| 1 |
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 11:37 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> Have the GWN posted to -core in a sane time period prior to it's |
| 3 |
> release. I seriously doubt anyone cares about whether the publication |
| 4 |
> is always "on time" (whatever that may be). |
| 5 |
So what would a sane time period be? 12h? 24h? |
| 6 |
The problem with that is that you need an editor who is available during |
| 7 |
this period to add corrections, but with the new influx of helpers I |
| 8 |
think we can manage. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> If it's a bi-weekly |
| 11 |
> publication it doesn't always have to go out on the same day, as long as |
| 12 |
> you get it out in the general time period. |
| 13 |
Well ... it is easier when you work with a schedule. Missing a |
| 14 |
"deadline" may happen, but that should not be the usual behaviour. |
| 15 |
bi-weekly is "silly" because you forget which week it is and suddenly |
| 16 |
you skip another week by accident ... I prefer to keep it weekly. And |
| 17 |
looking at the flood of material we have for the next edition I think it |
| 18 |
is sustainable. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I sometimes respond with |
| 21 |
> corrections/additions but they never make it because it is released |
| 22 |
> before my mail is sent. Often when I see the core mail I don't even |
| 23 |
> bother reading it since by looking at the timestamp I can guess it's |
| 24 |
> already been mailed. |
| 25 |
Hmmm. That looks like a timing problem - the GWN gets created on |
| 26 |
european time! |
| 27 |
I think we should try to have a bigger delay between draft and |
| 28 |
publication, but I'm not sure how to do it best. Maybe shift the draft |
| 29 |
to saturday and push the final version on sunday? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Patrick |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives