On 03/13/2014 08:44 AM, Tim Krupinski wrote: > Thanks for the info. I just checked Redhat's support site, and it > appears the docs are licensed as such: > > This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>. If you > distribute this document, or a modified version of it, you must > provide attribution to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the > original. If the document is modified, all Red Hat trademarks > must be removed. > > Are you concerned with the amount of effort it would take to remove all > of RedHat's trademarks if we were to modify it? Either way, one of the > first things I wanted to address wasn't necessarily adding more > documentation, but starting a conversation about how it's currently > organized on the wiki. Yes. It was mostly a 'level of effort' concern since the sources aren't published. Coupled with a concern about how we'd add our project-specific documentation (variant or sig work as joe brought up). > For example, on the Front Page, there are four different tabs that > reference "Documentation" - Help, Tips & Tricks, How To, and FAQs. It > isn't very clear whether the FAQ is about the Wiki, or the project. > Compare that to the Fedora Project wiki, where the front page has one > pretty obvious link in the sidebar called 'Documentation'. From there > you can get the official manuals, information on the IRC channel, etc. What suggestions or changes would you make? > The other mild annoyance i've experienced with CentOS documentation is > that i'm commonly linked to a section of an outdated version - like the > other day when I searched for some X11 settings and was referred to > Chapter 30 from the CentOS 4.5 manual. Personally it's not a big deal > because I know that this is still relevant. But as a newcomer to either > the Linux commnities or CentOS specifically, I would be wondering why I > can't find up-to-date documents. True, but a fair chunk of this is related to the fact that we don't currently have 6.x documentation. > That being said, I suppose the next step is to find out how I should go > from here. Are there any sort of regular meetings? What other > collaboration tools are used? If there's nothing formal maybe a > conference call might prove useful. I can set up a bridge line if > people are interested in that. So, lets work at establishing a set of goals or changes we need to make. Once we have that we can get some input or agreement from others on the list, and then identify how/when to make the changes. > Thanks again, > > Tim > >> Joe Brockmeier <mailto:jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> >> March 13, 2014 at 8:00 AM >> >> Another thing to consider, and I don't know if I've seen elsewhere, is >> whether there'll be a 'standard' way to produce documentation for >> variants / anything produced by SIGs. >> >> Will that just go on the wiki? Should it be full-blown DocBook guides >> like the official upstream docs? Will every SIG just make that decision >> on their own? (In a perfect world, documentation for all variants would >> be similar and not a Frankenstein's monster mix of wiki, DocBook, or >> whatever else.) >> >> I guess the Xen4CentOS project would be the current poster child for >> variants? Looks like that documentation lives on the wiki: >> >> http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/Xen4-01 >> >> Best, >> >> jzb >> Jim Perrin <mailto:jperrin@xxxxxxxxxx> >> March 13, 2014 at 7:12 AM >> On 03/12/2014 09:39 AM, Tim Krupinski wrote: >>> Hey all - >>> >>> Just curious to find out if there's any activity with the documentation >>> SIG? I'd like to join. One thing i've noticed is that it seems like >>> documentation for CentOS ends at 5. While the documentation is more or >>> less mirrored from RedHat's site, this can be confusing to beginners since >>> they may get the impression that documentation isn't there. >> >> Most of the activity has been around things other than docs, but you do >> bring up a good point. We *need* to address this. >> >> With the 6.x documentation, there was a licensing change that >> complicates things for us. Changes to the documentation mean that you >> can't redistribute. Oracle appears to work around this by shipping the >> official pdf documentation. >> >> The web pages for the docs are also done slightly differently, and >> mirroring them would require editing the html. We're not certain if this >> constitutes a 'change' or not and have been focusing on other things >> (SIG, dojo efforts). >> >>> That being said, i would love to help out with bringing the wiki up to date >>> in this regard. >> >> This would be fantastic, and I would very much welcome your efforts. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-docs mailing list > CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs > -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
