#24: Decide what titles/roles to apply to workers for IG and add that to rpminfo.xml ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: ke4qqq | Owner: quaid Type: task | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: RC-ready Component: Content | Version: 10.0.0 Resolution: | Keywords: ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Comment (by pfrields): I would personally prefer that we remove all names (and thus the onerous concept of "ownership") from all our guides, and simply refer to them as written by the "Fedora Documentation Team." I started doing this a while ago with some of the other documentation like the Release Notes, even though Karsten and I were doing a lot of editing work there. The concept of ownership in FOSS projects where you're trying to increase team membership and cohesiveness is a touchy one. I like the idea of putting a colophon or appendix in our guides to give credit where credit is due, but keeping the title page clean. Otherwise, we'd really have to include a ton of names there where it just means more scrolling and difficulty to read. I for one would be happy to relinquish having my name on the title page to make the document seem more like a team effort. If someone puts my name somewhere else in the document showing my contributions, great -- and if not, that's fine too! Also, another note about usability and readability of the document -- see how the very important version/release info gets lost on this page: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/translation-quick-start-guide/en_US/ Readers need that info to file bugs on the document, and concealing it under long lists of people exponentially decreases the chance that someone will file the bug correctly. By the way, copyrights are not a problem -- using the standard "Copyright (C) 20XX Red Hat, Inc. and others" allows us to track it properly. This copyright statement is in legal agreement with the CLA, and protects the rights of everyone in the Fedora Project who contributes to the documentation. It doesn't make Red Hat's contributions or rights more important, it's simply a shorthand that makes it easier for Red Hat to protect the entire team's rights under copyright. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/install-guide/ticket/24#comment:1> Fedora Installation Guide <https://fedorahosted.org/install-guide/> Fedora Documentation - Installation Guide

#24: Decide what titles/roles to apply to workers for IG and add that to a new Colophon ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: ke4qqq | Owner: quaid Type: task | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: RC-ready Component: Content | Version: 10.0.0 Resolution: | Keywords: ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Comment (by ke4qqq): While I agree that there are several problems with 'ownership' of a document such as: *it creates 'superstars' *it excludes others, particularly newbs. I even agree that the proper method to give credit (which even the style guide agrees with) is a colophon at the end. That said - I don't want to completely obliterate 'credit' from any document. One of the few currencies in a meritocracy is recognition of peers and outsiders for that matter. I think ESR's 'Homesteading the Noosphere' is an excellent treatise that discusses that phenomenon. I don't think that's the intention particularly since you mention a colophon. However reading the first paragraph out of context could lead to that conclusion. For some people who have attained 'stickster-level' or 'quaid-ness' the name listing on yet another document probably doesn't matter. However to a newb for whom a given document may be their first 'published work' or first OSS contribution that listing is very valuable - it's the flag they've planted saying they're a contributor. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/install-guide/ticket/24#comment:3> Fedora Installation Guide <https://fedorahosted.org/install-guide/> Fedora Documentation - Installation Guide