10:27 p.m.
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?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
10:33 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)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
1:49 p.m.
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(a)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.
--
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
4:32 p.m.
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.)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
4:37 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)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
11:04 p.m.
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(a)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. :-)
--
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
2:17 p.m.
On Mar 19, 2015 6:04 PM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)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(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
2:26 p.m.
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.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
2:04 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
3320
days inactive
3331
days old
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Jaroslav Reznik -
Josh Boyer -
Matthew Miller -
Máirín Duffy -
Paul W. Frields -
White, Langdon