Can't we just moderate the wiki?
I imagined the Docs team would be responsible for its architecture and the moderation/approval of content which would simply be open for editing submissions by anyone. That keeps the structure from decaying into the problems Pete described and it allows immediate and easy editing submissions by anyone who drives by. If immediate-feedback is a concern, we could even have it configured so that recent yet-to-be-approved suggestions appear in some immediate form that marks them as obviously yet-to-be-approved or something. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Jeff Fearn <jfearn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18/02/16 08:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 08:27:43AM +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
>> The current system does not address scalibility issues, it's simply
>> insulated from them because it is a huge barrier to entry. If you could
>> somehow magic a lot more contributors using the current system you'd hit
>> the exact same gardening issues as content increased and fragmented.
>> i.e. If you get more contributors you will have to face these gardening
>> issues regardless of the technology you chose.
>
> Right, so, I think an important goal of the new system is to make that
> gardening easy -- and it just plain isn't with wikis.
There are well gardened wikis, you have even named some, there are no
sites where gardening is easy.
Cheers, Jeff.
--
Jeff Fearn
Senior Software Engineer
PnT - DevOps - Development
Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/
--
docs mailing list
docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
