So, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base, from 2009, speaks mostly about the previous default offering. We should update this. Stephen Gallagher, I know you're full of free time :) -- do you want to take that on as part of the Fedora.next Editions change?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base, from 2009, speaks mostly about the previous default offering. We should update this. Stephen Gallagher, I know you're full of free time :) -- do you want to take that on as part of the Fedora.next Editions change?
To be honest, I would delete it entirely.
The WGs already did a lot of this for their own PRDs. If anything we should simply references those, as one of the main points of Editions is to target _different_ user bases so we don't argue over a single one. In other words, just let the Edition WGs define it themselves.
josh
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 05:33:57PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base, from 2009, speaks mostly about the previous default offering. We should update this. Stephen Gallagher, I know you're full of free time :) -- do you want to take that on as part of the Fedora.next Editions change?
To be honest, I would delete it entirely.
The WGs already did a lot of this for their own PRDs. If anything we should simply references those, as one of the main points of Editions is to target _different_ user bases so we don't argue over a single one. In other words, just let the Edition WGs define it themselves.
As one of that page's original authors, I agree. The WGs and other events have overtaken this page.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:49:29AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
To be honest, I would delete it entirely.
As one of that page's original authors, I agree. The WGs and other events have overtaken this page.
I don't have a problem with that, but note that it is linked to by about 80 other pages on the wiki. I'm about half serious about suggesting that we should start anew with a clean slate. (More precisely, a new wiki for documnetation only, with clear separation between user documentation and internal-facing documentation, and between drafts and final documents. Leave the existing wiki as an anything-goes workspace.)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:49:29AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
To be honest, I would delete it entirely.
As one of that page's original authors, I agree. The WGs and other events have overtaken this page.
I don't have a problem with that, but note that it is linked to by about 80 other pages on the wiki. I'm about half serious about suggesting that we should start anew with a clean slate. (More precisely, a new wiki for documnetation only, with clear separation between user documentation and internal-facing documentation, and between drafts and final documents. Leave the existing wiki as an anything-goes workspace.)
The solution to stale wikis is not to create more wikis...
josh
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:37:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:49:29AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
To be honest, I would delete it entirely.
As one of that page's original authors, I agree. The WGs and other events have overtaken this page.
I don't have a problem with that, but note that it is linked to by about 80 other pages on the wiki. I'm about half serious about suggesting that we should start anew with a clean slate. (More precisely, a new wiki for documnetation only, with clear separation between user documentation and internal-facing documentation, and between drafts and final documents. Leave the existing wiki as an anything-goes workspace.)
The solution to stale wikis is not to create more wikis...
It's also not to use a wiki to set the future direction for documentation. :-)
On Mar 19, 2015 6:04 PM, "Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:37:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:49:29AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
To be honest, I would delete it entirely.
As one of that page's original authors, I agree. The WGs and other events have overtaken this page.
I don't have a problem with that, but note that it is linked to by about 80 other pages on the wiki. I'm about half serious about suggesting that we should start anew with a clean slate. (More precisely, a new wiki for documnetation only, with clear separation between user documentation and internal-facing documentation, and between drafts and final documents. Leave the existing wiki as an anything-goes workspace.)
The solution to stale wikis is not to create more wikis...
It's also not to use a wiki to set the future direction for documentation. :-)
Is this a problem for docs (or a collaboration between docs and marketing)? Why does the council have anything to do with the IA[1] of fedora's communication for documentation , org, getting started, etc? I could see "approval" or "objective identification" but not "solution". I would posit that the people in those groups are way more competent in the subject than I am.
Langdon
[1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_architecture
-- 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 _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:17:54AM -0400, White, Langdon wrote:
The solution to stale wikis is not to create more wikis...
It's also not to use a wiki to set the future direction for documentation. :-)
Is this a problem for docs (or a collaboration between docs and marketing)? Why does the council have anything to do with the IA[1] of fedora's communication for documentation , org, getting started, etc? I could see "approval" or "objective identification" but not "solution". I would posit that the people in those groups are way more competent in the subject than I am. [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_architecture
That's fair. What I want is something that _has_ an information architecture; the wiki as it stands is a perfect example of an unarchitected system. That's actually useful and powerful for many things, but breaks down for others. So, going back to Josh's comment, I wasn't suggesting we just have another one of those. (If we did, it'd start out fine and break down again.) I know docs team _is_ working on a new system to generate nice user-facing docs from arbitrary git repos. So maybe the answer is to kill the project-overview section in the wiki (about, mission, vision, objectives, etc.) and move to that.
----- Original Message -----
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base, from 2009, speaks mostly about the previous default offering. We should update this. Stephen Gallagher, I know you're full of free time :) -- do you want to take that on as part of the Fedora.next Editions change?
To be honest, I would delete it entirely.
The WGs already did a lot of this for their own PRDs. If anything we should simply references those, as one of the main points of Editions is to target _different_ user bases so we don't argue over a single one. In other words, just let the Edition WGs define it themselves.
+1.
Jaroslav
josh _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org