Thanks to all of you who voted. The top four vote receivers hold their seats (voluntarily) for twelve months. The next three have their seats up for re-election in six months; they of course may run for their seat again at that time.
After the next election in six months, we can review as a group if we like to do twice-yearly or yearly elections for FDSCo.
Nominees -- thanks again for stepping up. You rock. Keep up the good work you know that you do.
- Karsten
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Results for the Fedora Documentation Steering Committee February 2007
Votes | Candidate ------+---------------------------- 20 | Paul W. Frields pfrields 18 | Karsten Wade kwade 17 | Dimitris Glezos glezos 16 | Robert 'Bob' Jensen bjensen 14 | John Babich jmbabich 10 | Pawel Sadowski mcgiwer 10 | Bart Couvreur couf 7 | Gavin Henry ghenry
Fedora Docs Team:
Congratulations to all the newly elected members.
Gavin, I hope you can still be active in the Docs Project as you have a lot to offer the Project. (BTW, I voted for you).
John Babich Volunteer, Fedora Docs Project
<quote who="John Babich">
Fedora Docs Team:
Congratulations to all the newly elected members.
Gavin, I hope you can still be active in the Docs Project as you have a lot to offer the Project. (BTW, I voted for you).
Many thank John. It's only fair, I've done naf all, but it will be the yea rot prove myself again by knocking out the docs I've always been meening too.
"Advanced OpenLDAP" "Squid" "Amanda"
are ones on my list.
Thanks all.
John Babich Volunteer, Fedora Docs Project
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
On 2/28/07, Gavin Henry ghenry@suretecsystems.com wrote:
Many thank John. It's only fair, I've done naf all, but it will be the yea rot prove myself again by knocking out the docs I've always been meening too.
"Advanced OpenLDAP" "Squid" "Amanda"
are ones on my list.
Thanks all.
I'm looking forward to them, especially the one on OpenLDAP. Will that doc also address Fedora Directory Server?
John Babich Volunteer, Fedora Docs Project
<quote who="John Babich">
On 2/28/07, Gavin Henry ghenry@suretecsystems.com wrote:
Many thank John. It's only fair, I've done naf all, but it will be the yea rot prove myself again by knocking out the docs I've always been meening too.
"Advanced OpenLDAP" "Squid" "Amanda"
are ones on my list.
Thanks all.
I'm looking forward to them, especially the one on OpenLDAP. Will that doc also address Fedora Directory Server?
We don't know anything about FDS, and don't really want to ;-) OpenLDAP is far superior.
Thanks.
John Babich Volunteer, Fedora Docs Project
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
Gavin Henry wrote:
<quote who="John Babich"> >> > I'm looking forward to them, especially the one on OpenLDAP. > Will that doc also address Fedora Directory Server?
We can find documentation from the FDS wiki.
We don't know anything about FDS, and don't really want to ;-) OpenLDAP is far superior.
I dont know anything about A but B is definitely better. Amusing. Isn't it?
Rahul
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 04:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gavin Henry wrote:
<quote who="John Babich"> >> > I'm looking forward to them, especially the one on OpenLDAP. > Will that doc also address Fedora Directory Server?
We can find documentation from the FDS wiki.
Actually, there is very little documentation on the FDS wiki itself other than a (good) FAQ, feature list, and standard developer information. The majority of the "good" documentation is the Red Hat Directory Server Documentation, which does not offer very good practical hands-on information that puts it in reach of the majority of Fedora users. (It is *very* helpful for enterprise administrators, but they are less likely to use Fedora solutions for long-term support scenarios for good reasons.) Not to mention that none of these Red Hat documents are licensed in a compatible way content-wise.
We don't know anything about FDS, and don't really want to ;-) OpenLDAP is far superior.
I dont know anything about A but B is definitely better. Amusing. Isn't it?
Actually, this *is* an interesting perspective of many users (of anything, as a matter of fact), that tends to take root when the vendor or offering entity doesn't have any clear hooks on which they can "sell" a product. This has been written about in a bunch of places, but I think most recently I've seen it come up tangentially on the "Creating Passionate Users" blog, which everyone around here should probably check out -- if only for a couple of priceless articles on good user manuals.
FDS may or may not be fantastic, but it is poorly "marketed" and for darn sure it doesn't get talked about much. Quite a lot of that may be due to the fact that the folks working on it are very busy trying to make it better and don't have time to do that important user outreach. Fedora does a pretty good job project-wide on the whole, but even we can have problems from time to time getting our important messages out. And FDS is a weird subproject that hasn't received a lot of love from the community, and has been more of a "throw it over the wall" contribution, albeit a really cool one.
I think this is a user perspective that we can actually learn from. Every opinion is a chance to learn how we can improve outreach. Well, *almost* every opinion. :-)
<quote who="Paul W. Frields">
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 04:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gavin Henry wrote:
<quote who="John Babich"> >> > I'm looking forward to them, especially the one on OpenLDAP. > Will that doc also address Fedora Directory Server?
We can find documentation from the FDS wiki.
Actually, there is very little documentation on the FDS wiki itself other than a (good) FAQ, feature list, and standard developer information. The majority of the "good" documentation is the Red Hat Directory Server Documentation, which does not offer very good practical hands-on information that puts it in reach of the majority of Fedora users. (It is *very* helpful for enterprise administrators, but they are less likely to use Fedora solutions for long-term support scenarios for good reasons.) Not to mention that none of these Red Hat documents are licensed in a compatible way content-wise.
Agreed.
We don't know anything about FDS, and don't really want to ;-)
OpenLDAP is
far superior.
I dont know anything about A but B is definitely better. Amusing. Isn't it?
Actually, this *is* an interesting perspective of many users (of anything, as a matter of fact), that tends to take root when the vendor or offering entity doesn't have any clear hooks on which they can "sell" a product. This has been written about in a bunch of places, but I think most recently I've seen it come up tangentially on the "Creating Passionate Users" blog, which everyone around here should probably check out -- if only for a couple of priceless articles on good user manuals.
FDS may or may not be fantastic, but it is poorly "marketed" and for darn sure it doesn't get talked about much. Quite a lot of that may be due to the fact that the folks working on it are very busy trying to make it better and don't have time to do that important user outreach. Fedora does a pretty good job project-wide on the whole, but even we can have problems from time to time getting our important messages out. And FDS is a weird subproject that hasn't received a lot of love from the community, and has been more of a "throw it over the wall" contribution, albeit a really cool one.
I think this is a user perspective that we can actually learn from. Every opinion is a chance to learn how we can improve outreach. Well, *almost* every opinion. :-)
Agreed.
-- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Actually, this *is* an interesting perspective of many users (of anything, as a matter of fact), that tends to take root when the vendor or offering entity doesn't have any clear hooks on which they can "sell" a product. This has been written about in a bunch of places, but I think most recently I've seen it come up tangentially on the "Creating Passionate Users" blog, which everyone around here should probably check out -- if only for a couple of priceless articles on good user manuals.
FDS may or may not be fantastic, but it is poorly "marketed" and for darn sure it doesn't get talked about much.
I dont know where you are looking but I see it talked about in even other distribution forums quite often.
Quite a lot of that may be
due to the fact that the folks working on it are very busy trying to make it better and don't have time to do that important user outreach. Fedora does a pretty good job project-wide on the whole, but even we can have problems from time to time getting our important messages out. And FDS is a weird subproject that hasn't received a lot of love from the community, and has been more of a "throw it over the wall" contribution, albeit a really cool one.
Are you talking about perception or reality? Reality is that Fedora Directory Server has full time developers working on cleaning up the codebase (lots of cruft from its life as Netscape Directory Server) and adding new features. fedora-ds-base is even in Fedora Extras now thanks to folks from the community working on the reviews and sending patches. Java is a blocker for the nice gui on top but we should reach there soon.
Rahul
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 23:55 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Actually, this *is* an interesting perspective of many users (of anything, as a matter of fact), that tends to take root when the vendor or offering entity doesn't have any clear hooks on which they can "sell" a product. This has been written about in a bunch of places, but I think most recently I've seen it come up tangentially on the "Creating Passionate Users" blog, which everyone around here should probably check out -- if only for a couple of priceless articles on good user manuals.
FDS may or may not be fantastic, but it is poorly "marketed" and for darn sure it doesn't get talked about much.
I dont know where you are looking but I see it talked about in even other distribution forums quite often.
I don't think its visibility is as good as it could be. In part that could be due to the fact that good practical documentation is a little harder to find (and, to be fair, produce) for this kind of product.
Quite a lot of that may be
due to the fact that the folks working on it are very busy trying to make it better and don't have time to do that important user outreach. Fedora does a pretty good job project-wide on the whole, but even we can have problems from time to time getting our important messages out. And FDS is a weird subproject that hasn't received a lot of love from the community, and has been more of a "throw it over the wall" contribution, albeit a really cool one.
Are you talking about perception or reality? Reality is that Fedora Directory Server has full time developers working on cleaning up the codebase (lots of cruft from its life as Netscape Directory Server) and adding new features. fedora-ds-base is even in Fedora Extras now thanks to folks from the community working on the reviews and sending patches. Java is a blocker for the nice gui on top but we should reach there soon.
Number of developers is not equal to marketing. New features and presence in the repositories is not equal to marketing. GUI is not equal to marketing. My point was not that FDS is not good -- I actually like it and use it at work. But this is not the first time I've heard people say "Huh?" or misunderstand the feature set when I tell them about it. That tells me our message is not getting out. *That's* about marketing.
This is merely a reminder that we also want to guide perception in addition to providing real results. Further discussion probably belongs elsewhere for now since we're way OT here. Reality is for developers, and perception is for marketers. There's good work to be done by both.
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 21:16 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
for good reasons.) Not to mention that none of these Red Hat documents are licensed in a compatible way content-wise.
IIRC, the content is licensed under the OPL without restrictions. Red Hat made sure that our control over the copyright was enough to do this, or we made separate arrangements with the other copyright holders (Sun, AOL).
The problem is not the license but the notable absence of source XML.
FDS is a weird subproject that hasn't received a lot of love from the community, and has been more of a "throw it over the wall" contribution, albeit a really cool one.
I think it is much more than that, it is quite active, and all the development of the enterprise product happens on the tip of CVS in cvs.fedoraproject.org. The problem seems to be more of knitting together the existing FDS community with the Fedora community. Not quite as hard as the idea of knitting jboss.org and Fedora, but still something that needs to be done deliberately.
Being close physically to the FDS team and having at one time been the lead content writer for that team, I'd be happy to work on this knitting. Umm, sometime. Soon, maybe even, if we have an imperative.
- Karsten
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 11:16 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 21:16 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
for good reasons.) Not to mention that none of these Red Hat documents are licensed in a compatible way content-wise.
IIRC, the content is licensed under the OPL without restrictions. Red Hat made sure that our control over the copyright was enough to do this, or we made separate arrangements with the other copyright holders (Sun, AOL).
The problem is not the license but the notable absence of source XML.
The wiki says the best documentation is at rh.c/docs/manuals/dir-server, where I find this (the Administrator's Guide, for example):
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/ag/7.1/titlepg.html
OPL + restrictions.
FDS is a weird subproject that hasn't received a lot of love from the community, and has been more of a "throw it over the wall" contribution, albeit a really cool one.
I think it is much more than that, it is quite active, and all the development of the enterprise product happens on the tip of CVS in cvs.fedoraproject.org. The problem seems to be more of knitting together the existing FDS community with the Fedora community. Not quite as hard as the idea of knitting jboss.org and Fedora, but still something that needs to be done deliberately.
Being close physically to the FDS team and having at one time been the lead content writer for that team, I'd be happy to work on this knitting. Umm, sometime. Soon, maybe even, if we have an imperative.
I don't know about imperative, but perhaps this is just a matter of lots of people still doing very useful and cool work, but none of them writers now. The RH docs are great, but very little for FDS seems to be helpful from a hands-on perspective. Only about a million or so sysadmins would like to see cookbooks for providing FDS services for their heterogeneous networks! There's probably a great place for that in FDP if we ever have someone with the requisite KSAs and writing time... (Not pointing in Karsten's direction since he's already working on a *lot* of stuff.)
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:28 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
The wiki says the best documentation is at rh.c/docs/manuals/dir-server, where I find this (the Administrator's Guide, for example):
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/ag/7.1/titlepg.html
OPL + restrictions.
Oh, boy, another windmill to tilt at. *sigh*
I believe it is not the intention of Red Hat to restrict those documents, but I could be wrong about these ones. Could be.
I don't know about imperative, but perhaps this is just a matter of lots of people still doing very useful and cool work, but none of them writers now. The RH docs are great, but very little for FDS seems to be helpful from a hands-on perspective. Only about a million or so sysadmins would like to see cookbooks for providing FDS services for their heterogeneous networks! There's probably a great place for that in FDP if we ever have someone with the requisite KSAs and writing time... (Not pointing in Karsten's direction since he's already working on a *lot* of stuff.)
I'm not a subject matter expert (SME); my main role in that product line was driving the idea and then the activities to get the 3000+ pages of content converted from FrameMaker-produced-HTML into DocBook XML. So, I know the documentation set far better than the material covered by it. :)
- Karsten
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 12:00 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:28 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I don't know about imperative, but perhaps this is just a matter of lots of people still doing very useful and cool work, but none of them writers now. The RH docs are great, but very little for FDS seems to be helpful from a hands-on perspective. Only about a million or so sysadmins would like to see cookbooks for providing FDS services for their heterogeneous networks! There's probably a great place for that in FDP if we ever have someone with the requisite KSAs and writing time... (Not pointing in Karsten's direction since he's already working on a *lot* of stuff.)
I'm not a subject matter expert (SME); my main role in that product line was driving the idea and then the activities to get the 3000+ pages of content converted from FrameMaker-produced-HTML into DocBook XML. So, I know the documentation set far better than the material covered by it. :)
*nod... In no way did I mean to implicate you in the process. :-) But maybe this is something Gavin could start with if and when he's available and driven...
<quote who="Rahul Sundaram">
Gavin Henry wrote:
<quote who="John Babich"> >> > I'm looking forward to them, especially the one on OpenLDAP. > Will that doc also address Fedora Directory Server?
We can find documentation from the FDS wiki.
True.
We don't know anything about FDS, and don't really want to ;-) OpenLDAP is far superior.
I dont know anything about A but B is definitely better. Amusing. Isn't it?
Heh, yeah. That came out wrong ;-)
Rahul
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
O/H Karsten Wade έγραψε:
Thanks to all of you who voted. The top four vote receivers hold their seats (voluntarily) for twelve months. The next three have their seats up for re-election in six months; they of course may run for their seat again at that time.
After the next election in six months, we can review as a group if we like to do twice-yearly or yearly elections for FDSCo.
Nominees -- thanks again for stepping up. You rock. Keep up the good work you know that you do.
Thanks to all for the vote of confidence. :-)
In case someone has missed it, Karsten has recently written some thoughts [1] about the elections that (at least) I, found very nice:
[1]: http://iquaid.livejournal.com/14413.html
Keep up the good work everyone! Lets see those plans [2] get implemented right away. :)
[2]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/SteeringCommittee/Nominations
-d
- Karsten
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Results for the Fedora Documentation Steering Committee February 2007
Votes | Candidate ------+---------------------------- 20 | Paul W. Frields pfrields 18 | Karsten Wade kwade 17 | Dimitris Glezos glezos 16 | Robert 'Bob' Jensen bjensen 14 | John Babich jmbabich 10 | Pawel Sadowski mcgiwer 10 | Bart Couvreur couf 7 | Gavin Henry ghenry