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