I don't mean to just beat a perhaps-dead horse, but I really can't get past the opposition (which I don't understand) to a wiki-like environment for our documentation which would facilitate this very thing.
I know there are concerns about "gardening" such a wiki, but seriously, if we can put in place a system similar to ask.fedoraproject.org where users are provided badges and karma for their work, I think that's the best we can do to promote user involvement in conjunction with an easy click-and-you're-in system for people to simply edit the content they're reading at that very moment, in real time.
I know I would contribute heavily to such an environment. I contribute heavily to ask.fedoraproject.org in no small part because I can quantify my involvement, and this helps in a lot of ways people might not expect; I have even used my contributions to ask.fedoraproject.org as validation of my skills for my employer. I have used it in job applications and resumes to demonstrate the quality of my writing and my ability to solve a variety of problems.
If we could just simplify the documentation process by providing an easily-edited repository with a service that quantifies user involvement, that, in my estimation, is the best model for maintaining active, accurate documentation for our user base. It dramatically simplifies the involvement process (getting into ask.fedoraproject.org is so easy, new accounts pop up all the time, and contributions even from low-level accounts have been very valuable), it makes the whole thing accessible, and for long-term contributors, it provides a means by which to quantify and qualify their involvement in the Fedora community, and this is a feature that can be used by anyone for whatever purpose they may have.
Our current system is extremely opaque, and the documentation is relatively static. We have to change that, in my opinion, and a simple Wiki with a user base consisting of moderators and contributors, managed by a karma and badge system, is the way to go.
I only propose this, yet again, because I just don't see the rationale in its opposition. It seems to have elicited a few relatively enthusiastic notes of support from this distribution group along with a few somewhat vague concerns which I think have been addressed.
Can we just chase this one down and prove that it is either unsuitable or valid as a solution for our issue? We gotta move on this!
-Dylan
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Brian, and everyone out there.On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 07:08:44PM -0500, Glen Rundblom wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 8:34 AM, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
> > This email is to drive some discussion around $subject. It follows from
> > a blog soon to be posted on the Fedora Community blog
> > (https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org ). The text below is copied
> > from that blog:
> >
> > Should we stop publishing the current guides now?
> >
> > The requirement to keep publishing the current guides feels very
> > self-imposed. Continuing to publish them is a challenge for the new
> > tooling as it has to be built to accommodate the past and therefore
> > slows down the future.
> >
> > Additionally, publishing the current books spreads our resources very
> > thinly, if not past the breaking point. It also creates inertia which
> > prevents the move to topics. Confusion can result from this as well
> > because contributors don't know what to update (old books or new
> > topics).
> >
> > Lastly, there is a growing belief in the larger documentation community
> > that no docs is better than old docs. Here this is a direct reference to
> > the fact that we don't republish all the docs for every release and we
> > don't thoroughly review every doc that is published. Versioned docs are
> > important, but some old materials is probably going to cause problems
> > (i.e. references to yum or iptables.)
> >
> > One proposal was to have a "flag day" where we stop updating the current
> > docs and another day (or same day) where we stop the publication. this
> > would definitely need to be moderated for versions not end of lifed.
> >
> I am torn at this question for a few reasons:
>
> 1. I enjoy working on the Virtualization Getting Started Guide
> 2. I work in the Education system, so during the October release of Fedora,
> updating the guide is a super-human effort
> 3. I would relish the idea of being able to no longer be responsible for the
> guide, yet, I do enjoy working on it. To me the Virtualization Getting
> Started Guide kind of feels a little bit like a ball and chain. I feel like
> I must update it because I am not sure anyone else has the interest or the
> time to update it.
>
> So most of that is just personal feelings, and no facts behind it. Hopefully
> it contributes something to the discussion.
Very thoughtful response IMHO, Glen. My feeling is that if we were
writing shorter, task-based documentation, the level of effort would
decrease. I tend to think a set of short articles covering much the
same ground as the VGSG would make it easier for new community members
to join you in the work.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
--
docs mailing list
docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@lists. fedoraproject.org
-- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
