On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 02:06 -0700, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > (http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=fedora-docs-writing) > > . > > > > Do i have check this tutorial into CVS and run a > > make command or > > something ?or editor will do it ? or I simply wait > > now for review > > process ? > > > > I hope I am going ok ... pl correct me If I am wrong > > > > the general trend is to supply both the html and > docbook xml documents as online links and revise your > documents based on peer feedback here before > submitting to the document to bugzilla. If you are > interested in feedback (you should be :-) then this > process might be a good idea Good point, Rahul. A couple of issues for different persons follow. Hopefully this doesn't come off as too didactic. * Karsten, What Rahul suggests is indeed how many people have solicited peer input, by using fedora-docs-list. Charles' hardening guide comes to mind as well. Do you think this process merits inclusion in the Quick Start Guide? I suppose it's possible someone could show up with a document that requires no peer review on this list, but how often will that happen? (And who in this environment is ever opposed to peer review, anyway?) * Gaurav, Please do a self-introduction to this list, as described in: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/SelfIntroduction I am going to take a SWAG that English is a second language for you. I am guessing this only based on a couple syntactical clues and your email address, so if I'm wrong, please accept my apologies. :-) We are happy to have any contributions, whether from native English speakers or otherwise. I think it would be great if all tutorials arrived at the project in complete sentences and following good compositional guidelines, but this is not always possible. However, the list has discussed before the problem of documents "thrown over the wall," so to speak. We generally would ask for documents to reach a certain, albeit ill-defined, state before the FDP takes them on officially. (See, for example, the self- introduction process described above.) Some documents, although full of useful information, can benefit from additional work by one or more writers before moving to the editorial stage. I think this tutorial is one of them. The job of "fleshing out" a document into well-formed narrative language falls pretty squarely with the writer(s), rather than the editor(s). I would suggest that, before this tutorial gets to "official" editorial, you ask the list for volunteers to help spruce up the narrative. This is a great way for new writers to participate in a group project, hopefully with one or more experienced writers. For experienced writers, you get the benefit of passing on your knowledge while guiding new writers. New writers can learn the ropes and earn some stripes. Keep in mind it can eventually be a glamorous job -- as glamorous as Fedora docs work gets! -- since someone who contributes significantly to that effort should be able to take an additional author credit. ("Your name in lights! [Chicks|Guys] dig it!") If you're happy with that idea, then take this suggestion and run with it. I will leave it up to you to poll the list for assistance, it's your baby! Good luck and best wishes. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
