On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 11:34:31AM -0700, James Adcock wrote:
Seems like the original contributor could be presumed to have implicitly authorized, indeed welcomed, corrected versions as replacements, regardless of the magnitude of the resulting change.
A big mistake is being made if contributions from individuals are viewed as "belonging" to the those contributors, if contribution from DP are viewed as "belonging" to DP, or if contributions to PG are viewed as "belonging" to PG.
On the contrary, all these things "belong" to the public, and respect to the public, and to the artistry of the original author, requires that we "get it right" and if and when we don't "get it right" then we need to work diligently and expeditiously to "get it fixed."
It seems that part of the problem HAS been that contributions from individuals have started to be viewed as "belonging" to the those contributors, and contributions from DP have started to viewed as "belonging" to DP, leading to reluctance to fix problem when they are found.
We encounter this rarely with contributors (from DP or elsewhere). But the procedure is clear: IF there is an errata report, and the producer/ contributor is reachable, then the errata team will usually consult with that contributor. If the contributor agrees with the change, no problem. There's a lot of human judgement and communication involved, sometimes. But mostly, error reports are enthusiastically accepted. And, very often (nearly always), updates to fix one set of reported errata usually lead to further updates. It's a positive feedback loop. The contributor does not get consulted for clear/obvious changes, usually. However, again, there are a lot of interpersonal relationships and personal preferences, so sometimes they do.
Part of the problem is that the donkey-work of HTML typesetting has itself become viewed as a form of "artistry" and "authorship" at PG and DP -- which it certainly IS NOT. Rather, it is simply typesetting. Which is still no excuse for doing it so badly.
In fact, the biggest problem with HTML as a master format is that it is (mis-)used for layout, not just structure. This is actively discouraged. At http://upload.pglaf.org, we request that the uploaded master should convert well to other formats, using epubmaker. While this is intended to avoid layout choices that don't map well to other formats, it is not extensively verified, by human or machine. -- Greg