May we give a new meaning to this project? (was: Re: Changes in the maintenance of the Developers Reference)

[Luca Brivio]

Hi,
last time I posted to this list was in January 2008, so one may believe the 
Debian Packaging Handbook project was discontinued. In fact, I did fail in 
gathering enough interest and contributions (and involvement) to the project 
by myself (neither finding enough time for taking care of it as I wished). 
Nonetheless, I don't think that it is or has become useless in the meanwhile.

September 21, 2009, 09:56:37, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Following a discussion on debian-devel at l.d.o[1], the way the Developers
> Reference[2] is maintained has been changed, with the aim to make it
> more public and easier for people to contribute.

which sounds appealing!

> Changes to developers-reference are now discussed on debian-policy at l.d.o
> (also used for debian-policy). Don't hesitate to jump in and contribute
> to the discussions.

But the DPH is not truly about official Policy. Anyway...

> Also, patches for developers-reference are very welcomed. In particular,
> it would be great if new (or not so new) packaging practices were more
> documented, like packaging processes with the various VCSes, cdbs and
> dh, patch systems, etc. Some teams have already written some
> documentation about that, and it could probably be gathered in
> developers-reference.

Our topic here is just packaging (and maintaning) processes! May we thus 
contribute stuff to the Developer's Reference, that were once out of its scope?

> Finally, we could use the help from one or two other editors. Their role
> is to direct the discussions around the patches, and integrate them into
> developers-reference. If you want to help, contact the current
> maintainers and participate in the discussions on debian-policy at .

I'd like it if the Debian Packaging Handbook project became a project involved 
in the collaborative authoring and editing of content patches to be submitted 
for further discussion and inclusion in the Developer's Reference. Also, 
patches that are seen as of good quality, but can't fit for inclusion in the 
Reference might be collected by us, put in order, finely tagged, etc.

Does anyone like my idea, or a different one? If so, I'm ready to devote some 
of my spare time at least for technical work, www and coordination.

Hints?

Huh, and my apologies for not having posted for so long.

Cheers.
-- 
Luca