Jon/Roger This appears functionally equivalent to the effort undertaken by several of us 3 or 4 years ago to extract the text from several projects and post them to readingroo.ms as non-PG certified "preview" texts. Advance approval was given by Jon Noring on behalf of PG, and was required from each of the Project Managers. Louise was aware but functionally silent. The transfer mechanism was established and put into operation by volunteers using existing DP interfaces entirely and disrupting no existing DP operations or personnel. No one in the DP hierarchy showed any positive interest or volunteered assistance. As I recall PM participation was mixed; but this was advertised as being for a few willing participants, not the general run of projects. After a short period of operation several dozen projects were transferred. At that point Louise declared the whole operation illegal and demanded it be terminated and any existing project texts be removed without exception from readingroo.ms, which was done. The "rule" that was established thereby was that the only texts allowed to escape into the wild would be those which had undergone the entire DP process from P1 through PP/PPV. Except, as I said before, by going through Louise first. Sent from my Phone From: Roger Frank Sent: 9/27/2012 3:05 AM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] DP protocols On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Jon Hurst <jon.a@hursts.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
Quick question to Don/Roger/Anyone who PM's at DP.
Assume Greg has got us a scan that of P&P. What DP rule are we breaking by skipping P3, F1, F2 and doing a simplified PP consisting of diffing against extant text and converting to UTF-8?
I don't think there is a "rule" for this at DP. If you want to attempt it, get DP management to buy off on it first and then be very clear in the project instructions that the users' work is not going to be taken to a finished book on the DP site. I believe some users would choose not to work on a project, especially with LOTE rules, that is only doing P1 and P2. That's not the DP workflow. If you were to get that done, I understand that the P2 output is the RTT in your scheme. That means that anyone who derives a final version (HTML, epub, kf8 etc. file) from it has to find and handle all the markup like intalics and superscripts on their own. It's not coded in the RTT if it's coming out of P2, since formatting is not present in the proofing stages, even inline formatting. That is a serious shortcoming to me. --Roger _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d