From owner-cvs-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 4 08:42:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E8116A407; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:42:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0014A43CBA; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:41:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F014A46F16; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 03:42:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:42:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Remko Lodder In-Reply-To: <20061204074206.GE2564@elvandar.org> Message-ID: <20061204084054.W69580@fledge.watson.org> References: <200612031944.kB3Ji1Ma081957@repoman.freebsd.org> <45732F01.6040204@FreeBSD.org> <20061203223415.D69580@fledge.watson.org> <20061204074206.GE2564@elvandar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Remko Lodder , doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, Marc Fonvieille , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/share/sgml header.ent www/en/layout/css layout.css www/en index.xsl X-BeenThere: cvs-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the doc and www trees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 08:42:03 -0000 On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Remko Lodder wrote: > Well do notice that I am not against the link itself, I am against > the way it was being done. doceng@ is not the proper entity for > these kind of things, they coordinate the development of documentation > and they assign/accept new commitbits. They cannot be seen as the > portmgr@ or core@ teams. The proper way is and should be by contacting > the webmasters mailinglist on www@ and ask for the change there. This > way the webmasters team can either commit it and/or do additional > things. > > As the "harm" already had been done, we should not remove the link > now (esp. with your reasoning), but I request that this will be > done the proper way the next time, and we should (www/doc team) really > consider some kind of guideline for new links (To avoid the overload > of information we once had with the old site). > > Does that sound reasonable to you Robert? I think we're in agreement. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge