Ah, I guess I never saw a rundown of the choices that were made. Could you
point me to them?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Pete Travis <me(a)petetravis.com> wrote:
Ahem. Mail client operator fail, trying again.
On Aug 12, 2016 10:12 AM, "Dylan Combs" <dylan.combs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
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
> 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!
We did already chase this idea down and determine that a wiki was not
suitable for a variety of reasons, which I will not reiterate in this
thread. The discussion has moved on to implementation of the choices we've
made. No, you won't have the new easier contribution path until more of
this implementation work is done. Revisiting the platform discussion only
adds stop energy at this point, let's please focus on executing the chosen
docs mailing list