Oops, re aptitude : was [Re: Edgy in the news]

[Eric Dunbar]

On 25/11/06, Mario Vukelic <mario.vukelic at dantian.org> wrote:
> [sorry Matt, the pesky list reply again]
>
> On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 20:56 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The official documentation *is* produced by the community.
>
> This starts to confuse the hell outta me. Now is it official or isn't
> it. By "official" I mean, can I trust as a user that the instructions
> given are reasonable correct? Matthew seems to say "no" [1]

For me the concern is that an appropriate QAQC (quality
assurance-quality control) process has taken place before the info
gets posted. For example, for the upgrade path (which sparked this
discussion) you'd have expected someone who's "in the know" to have
checked over the post before proceeding without caveats (the caveats
being added after-the-fact).

I like the notion of "open" development of documentation but I don't
_trust_ it because of a lack of accountability (i.e. someone's
responsible for avoiding major snafus like providing an upgrade path
that shouldn't be followed without caveats)!