Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de> wrote: > > Ned Slider wrote: > > >> Also, whilst undergoing this process, would it also be a good time to > >> request and/or formalize a documentation SIG as there doesn't appear to > >> be one at present. Presumably those who have raised their hands would be > >> obvious candidates for such a SIG. > > > > Ummm. I thought this was it? Or please rephrase what you mean by > > "documentation SIG" ... > > Well, it is listed under "Future SIGs": > > http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup Question: Do we need more than we have now (meaning: Do we need trac and subversion or is this mailing list and the wiki enough for now)? We cannot change the documentation we get from upstream and I don't remember if we have any other documentation than is on the wiki at the moment ... Cheers, Ralph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20081103/a78ea1cf/attachment-0002.sig>