On Feb 5, 2016 06:31, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:50:59PM -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
> > On 02/04/2016 03:00 PM, Dylan Combs wrote:
> > > *- writers want their preferred markup*
> > >
> > > What writers are actually demanding particular markup support? Do we have
> > > a list of demands? I have no idea what kind of person would be like "Well
> > > if it's not XML, I'm not writing it!" but maybe they exist. Is this really
> > > a significant obstacle? I'd settle for documentation written in good old
> > > fashioned UNIX-style plaintext, myself. The markup support seems like a
> > > tertiary concern to me. I'd value easily modified, up-to-date plaintext
> > > documentation way above difficult-to-modify, outdated documentation that
> > > has to go through an elaborate build process so that it can be delivered in
> > > a variety of pretty formats.
> >
> > I haven't come across any outright demands, but whenever the
> > conversation comes up, people do voice preferences.
> >
> > We have an active group of content engineering folks that are able to
> > leverage Fedora Docs as the 'upstream' for their work on Red Hat docs,
> > and I am concerned about making contribution less appealing for them by
> > requiring a departure from the markup they use 'downstream'.
>
> How would it affect this discussion if we were able to get some of the
> Red Hat content folks on board with both of: (1) the model of smaller,
> more modular docs; (2) tooling that worked like a git/pull-request
> model?
>
> I ask because I'm located near some of these guys this weekend and
> part of next week. It's a good opportunity to see if we can build
> some project work around this idea, and break the cycle of "we're
> stuck because this is really hard and takes time" -- which is
> ABSOLUTELY VALID, and a problem I'm familiar with from previous
> lives. ;-)
>
... snip ...
> In short: The tools should do the work, not the people. Spot on.
>
> And as Pete said, nothing I brought up was really novel. I was moved
> to reiterate after leafing through some of the current docs.fp.o.
>
> As I mentioned above, I'm really interested in getting some content
> services folks involved in the conversation. But I feel that should
> happen because Pete and other Docs folks *want* it to happen, not
> because I happen to be near them this week.
>
> So I guess my question a few paragraphs back still holds: if we can
> get some resources for this (IOW, people/time/passion), would joint
> work be of interest?
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields
You are absolutely empowered to approach content services folks in Brno or Raleigh or your neighbor's geeky kid about getting involved with this conversation. I'm wary of replicating content services' current tooling without gaining committed maintainers, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
--Pete
-- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
