1 |
Josh Saddler wrote: |
2 |
> It takes time and effort to produce one of our polished, professional |
3 |
> documents. That's duplicating the time and effort that it takes to write |
4 |
> a decent wiki article -- pointless duplication. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> One of the things I'm hearing from just about every other user and |
7 |
> developer is that users would be providing the peer review necessary to |
8 |
> keep documents at a general level of quality. This means "let the wiki |
9 |
> live its wiki life," which means there's no need to reformat the article |
10 |
> as something else. If it's a decent wiki article, then it should stand |
11 |
> on its own merits....as a wiki article, nothing else. It's a community |
12 |
> contributed article on the community-contributed resource. That's where |
13 |
> it belongs. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Most folks have said they're okay with official Gentoo documentation and |
16 |
> a second community-contributed resource (that may not be as accurate, |
17 |
> tested, readable, etc.) So keep that system around. If you want to jot |
18 |
> up a quick howto, or an article filled with individual speculation and |
19 |
> anecdotes, keep it on the wiki. If you want a doc to be considered *the* |
20 |
> authority on its subject (such as |
21 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml ;)), maintained by Gentoo |
22 |
> developers, then submit it to the GDP via bugzilla, or provide updates |
23 |
> to one of the docs we already have. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> There really is no reason why we can't have this split. There's no need |
26 |
> to XMLify every halfway decent wiki article just because it's so much |
27 |
> better than everything else on the wiki. Trying to do so involves an |
28 |
> inordinate number of work hours and staff that we just don't have, not |
29 |
> to mention greatly raising the existing maintainer burden. |
30 |
|
31 |
++ Good plan. |
32 |
|
33 |
-Joe |