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!