On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 21:50 -0600, Pete Travis wrote: > <snip> > > > > As I said before, I don't see why we don't just use an ArchWiki- > > style > > solution. Of the above points, I guess 1 and 2 might be against > > it, but I > > don't really understand them yet. Other than that, it seems a > > simple Wiki > > is enough to solve our major problems here, no? GitBook seems > > cool, too. > > I have personal complaints about wikis, but setting those aside, the > Fedora Project does not have a strong wiki gardening culture. The > state > of the current wiki would be the fate of another wiki, because the > people we want to participate already deal with wikis that way. The > static vs dynamic content argument applies, and to a lesser extent, > so > does the markup argument. > One of the problems with fedora wiki is that is really open to everybody, which is really good but it has some drawbacks. As anybody uses as they see fit wiki has turn a collection of: *personal profiles *Standard Operational Procedures *Submission of packages to be included in next version *Guidelines for some activities *How-to for setting up some stuff to work with infra *notepad for meetings and development in progress *Documents that should be in Documents *many other stuff ... This is not a problem per-se, it is a problem if you expect any coherence from the wiki. We have not set rules of what should not be in the wiki beyond what is copyrighted or infringe free software. Which means that you can put in the wiki whatever you feel it will help the community. This is not really a technical problem, it is a community problem, where we can be happy that we have freedom to do as we see fit or we came up with some guidelines to help people that do gardening their life more easy. There was the idea of tagging good documents so they can be processed and transferred to documentation space in FLOCK 2015. Neville -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
