From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sat Aug  2 02:29:22 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:29:22 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Pick a time for the IRC meeting
In-Reply-To: <FF237E4A-A576-49E7-894F-88775374D0AE@rocktreesky.com>
References: <562213B0-1790-44A5-A50C-7E014D0F4362@rocktreesky.com>
	<1E2C843B-1B03-4C02-B8ED-9CA3E9070D41@mac.com>
	<A203AB36-CFE1-43AC-8E04-9D6E07F71367@rocktreesky.com>
	<6150712C-1738-4AB8-9998-AD361A4DAFD7@brauerranch.com>
	<9f68efb70807302018n6a00f688o85f15ab4b02a4bcc@mail.gmail.com>
	<FF237E4A-A576-49E7-894F-88775374D0AE@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <C7B2F50C-BF74-49A5-98A0-B3E4409F5BFA@rocktreesky.com>

OK, so it looks like the winning time is Friday, August 8 at 16:00  
GMT, Noon EDT, 9am PDT.

We will meet in the Freenode IRC channel, #drupal-docs. We will meet  
for an hour and talk about tasks to get the new handbook put together  
and I'd also like to finalize the name (http://drupal.org/node/ 
285811). As in the past, we will post a summary and IRC logs of the  
meeting to the list for those that couldn't attend.

Feel free to begin working on organizing the sections based on the  
issues, as outlined in the original email in this thread: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-July/006152.html

See you all there!


On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Addison Berry wrote:

> Hey Shai, good points. I had originally intended in the first email  
> that all of this be sorted out at least a week before the actual  
> meeting. I am heading out of town tomorrow so I had wanted to figure  
> it our before then. So, let's say:
>
> Please pick times on Doodle ( http://doodle.ch/wffem5zqggsxgi4e)
>
> Before 16:00 GMT (Noon EDT, 9 am PDT), Friday August 1
>
> We will post the decided time by Midnight GMT (6 pm EDT, 3 pm PDT),  
> Friday August 1. The time will be based on most people who can  
> attend at a certain time.
>
> - Addi
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Shai Gluskin wrote:
>
>> I did Josh's poll thing. But I'll share the info here as well.
>>
>> I checked 12 - 4 on Friday, the 8th and 10 - 4 on Monday the 11th.
>>
>> When doing something like this I think two things are really helpful:
>>
>> * state the length of the meeting
>> * tell folks by what time they must reply
>>
>> One thing it helps with big time is my ability to keep those times  
>> clear. If know that by 9 A.M. EDT on Friday folks need to vote and  
>> that a decision will be made by noon on Friday, then it is easier  
>> for me to keep all those hours open on my schedule. But if I have  
>> no idea how long the date setting is going to take, then I have to  
>> fill up those spots as things come at me.
>>
>> So Addi -- set some boundaries here and hopefully we'll get a good  
>> response rate :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shai
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Joshua Brauer <joshua at brauerranch.com 
>> > wrote:
>> How about we give this handy group scheduling/polling tool a shot.
>>
>> Go to the URL below and pick your preferred times
>>  http://doodle.ch/wffem5zqggsxgi4e
>>
>> We can adjust the times if there's something popular/highly  
>> desirable that isn't there.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:32 PM, Addison Berry wrote:
>>
>>> So far we have an Aug. 10 and a "weekends aren't good." Any other
>>> feedback before we set the date?
>>>
>>> - Addi
>>>
>>> On Jul 25, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Senpai wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can do an online meet anytime during the day, and even weekends  
>>>> if
>>>> given enough notice. August 10th looks perfect for me.
>>>> -- 
>>>> Joel Farris
>>>> "The majority of your time today will be spent on things that just
>>>> don't matter."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Addison Berry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My schedule on weekends is pretty bad right now. I'd like to
>>>>> schedule a meeting for the weekend of August 9/10. I'm also open  
>>>>> to
>>>>> a weekday but not as many people can make those meetings. Please  
>>>>> let
>>>>> me know if you prefer the 9th or 10th and we'll set a date and  
>>>>> time
>>>>> at least a week in advance. (And this time I'll make sure I show
>>>>> up. ;-))
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080801/6499d66a/attachment.htm 

From info at erikstielstra.nl  Tue Aug  5 10:52:33 2008
From: info at erikstielstra.nl (Erik Stielstra)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:52:33 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Contrib module documentation
Message-ID: <0BDC822F-FCE7-4BF6-A336-2A64F05CC3E0@erikstielstra.nl>

For my presentation at DrupalCon (http://szeged2008.drupalcon.org/program/sessions/contrib-module-usability 
) I am reviewing the way module maintainers document their module.  
I.m.o. one of the bigger problems is that module maintainers take care  
of details but forget to explain the bigger picture. Additionally  the  
available documentation channels (see below) are used differently by  
different maintainers. As a result site admins and developers have to  
look in different places for their information and often have to wade  
through details and only learn the module's concept by trial and error.

Module maintainers can document their modules in different places:
* module's project page
* module's README.txt file
* Module's help page
* The handbook under Contributed modules (http://drupal.org/handbook/config/contribmodules 
)

Are there any guidelines on what means to use for what purpose?
The only thing I found is the 'Drupal Module Documentation  
Recommendations' (http://drupal.org/node/161085)

Erik Stielstra




From sepeck at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 16:24:56 2008
From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:24:56 -0700
Subject: [documentation] Contrib module documentation
In-Reply-To: <0BDC822F-FCE7-4BF6-A336-2A64F05CC3E0@erikstielstra.nl>
References: <0BDC822F-FCE7-4BF6-A336-2A64F05CC3E0@erikstielstra.nl>
Message-ID: <a151b5a00808050924q1909aafevc61554d6193cbf7a@mail.gmail.com>

There are not any specific guidelines for this.  In fact, many of the
docs on contributed modules were not in fact written by the module
maintainer, a lot were just added by people who figured out how to use
a module and contributed that knowledge back.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Erik Stielstra <info at erikstielstra.nl> wrote:
> For my presentation at DrupalCon (http://szeged2008.drupalcon.org/program/sessions/contrib-module-usability
> ) I am reviewing the way module maintainers document their module.
> I.m.o. one of the bigger problems is that module maintainers take care
> of details but forget to explain the bigger picture. Additionally  the
> available documentation channels (see below) are used differently by
> different maintainers. As a result site admins and developers have to
> look in different places for their information and often have to wade
> through details and only learn the module's concept by trial and error.
>
> Module maintainers can document their modules in different places:
> * module's project page
> * module's README.txt file
> * Module's help page
> * The handbook under Contributed modules (http://drupal.org/handbook/config/contribmodules
> )
>
> Are there any guidelines on what means to use for what purpose?
> The only thing I found is the 'Drupal Module Documentation
> Recommendations' (http://drupal.org/node/161085)
>
> Erik Stielstra
>
>
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From fernandoparedesgarcia at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 04:23:02 2008
From: fernandoparedesgarcia at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?IkZlcm5hbmRvIFAuIEdhcmPDrWEi?=)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:23:02 -0500
Subject: [documentation] Contrib module documentation
In-Reply-To: <0BDC822F-FCE7-4BF6-A336-2A64F05CC3E0@erikstielstra.nl>
References: <0BDC822F-FCE7-4BF6-A336-2A64F05CC3E0@erikstielstra.nl>
Message-ID: <48992726.4000600@gmail.com>

About contrib modules documentation, you mentin modules home page, 
README.txt and help page, don't forget the built-in hook_help.
I have the idea to load README.txt into hook_help, so that is is more 
accesible. What do you think?

Blessings!

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Erik Stielstra <info at erikstielstra.nl 
<mailto:info at erikstielstra.nl>> wrote:

    For my presentation at DrupalCon
    (http://szeged2008.drupalcon.org/program/sessions/contrib-module-usability
    ) I am reviewing the way module maintainers document their module.
    I.m.o. one of the bigger problems is that module maintainers take care
    of details but forget to explain the bigger picture. Additionally  the
    available documentation channels (see below) are used differently by
    different maintainers. As a result site admins and developers have to
    look in different places for their information and often have to wade
    through details and only learn the module's concept by trial and error.

    Module maintainers can document their modules in different places:
    * module's project page
    * module's README.txt file
    * Module's help page
    * The handbook under Contributed modules
    (http://drupal.org/handbook/config/contribmodules
    )

    Are there any guidelines on what means to use for what purpose?
    The only thing I found is the 'Drupal Module Documentation
    Recommendations' (http://drupal.org/node/161085)

    Erik Stielstra



    --
    Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
    List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/




-- 
Fernando P. Garc?a, http://www.develcuy.com
Developer - Analista de Sistemas
+51 1 9 8991 7871, Mz. P Lt. 30 1et Urb. Pachacamac - VES, Lima - Per?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080805/4f377c6c/attachment-0001.htm 

From info at erikstielstra.nl  Wed Aug  6 06:31:08 2008
From: info at erikstielstra.nl (Erik Stielstra)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:31:08 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Contrib module documentation
In-Reply-To: <48992726.4000600@gmail.com>
References: <0BDC822F-FCE7-4BF6-A336-2A64F05CC3E0@erikstielstra.nl>
	<48992726.4000600@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7F958FC8-2727-455D-9AB3-DB4818BAAB22@erikstielstra.nl>

On 6 aug 2008, at 06:23, Fernando P. Garc?a wrote:
> About contrib modules documentation, you mentin modules home page,  
> README.txt and help page, don't forget the built-in hook_help.
> I have the idea to load README.txt into hook_help, so that is is  
> more accesible. What do you think?

Loading the readme.txt into the help page is in my view a fallback  
scenario, but at least it makes this file more visible. You find  
example code here: http://drupal.org/node/161085 But a webpage has  
more to offer it can provide links to the various places (e.g.  
settings pages) and even dynamic indication of  the installation status.

Regards,
Erik


From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Thu Aug  7 23:48:39 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 19:48:39 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Reminder: IRC meeting Fri., Aug. 8 at 16:00 GMT
In-Reply-To: <C7B2F50C-BF74-49A5-98A0-B3E4409F5BFA@rocktreesky.com>
References: <562213B0-1790-44A5-A50C-7E014D0F4362@rocktreesky.com>
	<1E2C843B-1B03-4C02-B8ED-9CA3E9070D41@mac.com>
	<A203AB36-CFE1-43AC-8E04-9D6E07F71367@rocktreesky.com>
	<6150712C-1738-4AB8-9998-AD361A4DAFD7@brauerranch.com>
	<9f68efb70807302018n6a00f688o85f15ab4b02a4bcc@mail.gmail.com>
	<FF237E4A-A576-49E7-894F-88775374D0AE@rocktreesky.com>
	<C7B2F50C-BF74-49A5-98A0-B3E4409F5BFA@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <A342EAE9-239E-4E8F-81AA-20D38DECF31A@rocktreesky.com>

Just a reminder. :-)

On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Addison Berry wrote:

> OK, so it looks like the winning time is Friday, August 8 at 16:00  
> GMT, Noon EDT, 9am PDT.
>
> We will meet in the Freenode IRC channel, #drupal-docs. We will meet  
> for an hour and talk about tasks to get the new handbook put  
> together and I'd also like to finalize the name (http://drupal.org/node/285811 
> ). As in the past, we will post a summary and IRC logs of the  
> meeting to the list for those that couldn't attend.
>
> Feel free to begin working on organizing the sections based on the  
> issues, as outlined in the original email in this thread: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-July/006152.html
>
> See you all there!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080807/9923627a/attachment.htm 

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Fri Aug  8 13:45:04 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:45:04 -0400
Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting agenda
Message-ID: <857F81B3-1EA5-40A2-9207-AD3F14633815@rocktreesky.com>

I figured I should get some thoughts down as to exactly what we need  
to discuss today:

Agenda for Docs team meeting
August 8, 16:00 GMT (noon EDT, 9am PDT), freenode #drupal-docs

Finalize new book name: http://drupal.org/node/285811

Review new book section issues: http://drupal.org/project/issues?projects=18753&text=Contrib%20Redesign:&states=1,16,8,13,14,15,2,4&priorities=&categories=&users=

List immediate goals and next steps

Discuss About/New book/Getting started book split options:
   1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book  
a bit.
   2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing  
kinds of things to Getting started book.

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sat Aug  9 22:51:08 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 18:51:08 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Log and summary of August 8 IRC meeting
Message-ID: <812E40A3-569C-47DD-890D-BAF71661575B@rocktreesky.com>

Thanks to everyone who came to the IRC meeting. This is to give a  
summary of the meeting to those who couldn't make it. The IRC log is  
available here: http://pastebin.com/f49d408cf

This meeting was held on the Freenode IRC #drupal-docs channel on  
Friday, August 8 at 16:00 GMT.

We hit everything on the agenda and the big take-aways were:
1) We will name the new book Getting Involved. The issue for deciding  
the name (http://drupal.org/node/285811) has been changed to an issue  
for creating the description paragraph that will appear on the  
handbooks landing page. A number of people expressed that they want o  
make it clear that the book is about getting help, how to give help  
and how awesome the Drupal community is. ;-) Feel free to give it a  
shot. Remember that it is one *short* paragraph similar to the other  
books on http://drupal.org/handbooks. Have fun expressing yourself  
concisely. ;-)

2) Several people have taken on lead for filling out various sections  
of the new book outline. The issues are located here:
http://drupal.org/project/issues?projects=18753&text=Contrib%20Redesign:

The question of exactly what does "taking the lead" on these mean. In  
summary:
1. look at the outline for the section in the issue
2. determine which existing pages should go there
3. mark up the outline indicating which pages will go where
4. make note of new pages we need to write

Some examples:
http://drupal.org/node/240251#comment-796689
http://drupal.org/node/240243#comment-951709

You can assign a section to yourself by selecting your name from the  
"Assigned" dropdown when leaving a comment on an issue. Taking lead  
does not mean you have to do it all your self. Feel free to team up  
with others. Feel free to ping me (add1sun in the Drupal IRC channels)  
or schedule a time and I will help anyone out with their section. You  
can email me through my contact form: http://drupal.org/user/65088/contact

*** Also note: just because someone else has "claimed" a section does  
not mean you can't help. Everyone is free to leave comments and  
suggestions to help fill these out. Let's help each other and get this  
done.

3) Next steps:
- We are aiming to get the section issues completed in the next 2  
weeks. Then we will schedule a time, probably during DrupalCon Szeged,  
to shift everything around.
- Plan the next IRC meeting before Szeged. (An email for this will go  
out shortly.)
- Some issues were raised that need separate emails to the list.  
(These will go out shortly.)

4) Discuss what to do with the existing About book. There are  
basically two options on the table:
1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book
2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing  
kinds of things to Getting started

We discussed this briefly and tossed around some thoughts. This will  
go out as a separate email for thorough discussion by the team before  
a final decision is made. The folks in IRC were leaning towards option  
#1.

That about wraps it up. Thanks to all.


  

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sat Aug  9 23:14:35 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:14:35 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Plan the next IRC meeting
Message-ID: <D13CAB9D-A9B5-4C0E-979D-F13115E65482@rocktreesky.com>

During the Aug. 8 meeting it was decided we should meet again before  
DrupalCon Szeged, which starts August 27.

I've created a Doodle for Aug 21, 22, 23 at http://www.doodle.ch/c4mu7fcqzhhuqsnh 
  Please fill out times you are available so we can pick a good time.

As usual, the meeting will last for 1 hour and be held on the freenode  
#drupal-docs IRC channel. Open to all, even folks that just want to  
lurk. :-)

Besides doodling for time, also feel free to respond to this email to  
add items to the agenda.

Currently on the agenda:
- See where we are on the new Getting Involved handbook section being  
filled out.
- Brainstorm on tasks for the DrupalCon docs sprint. (There is a BoF  
during DrupalCon to help organize this but the more ideas we have  
before the sprint the better.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080809/eeac87dd/attachment.htm 

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sat Aug  9 23:25:55 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:25:55 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Documentation taxonomy?
Message-ID: <7A448460-AD30-465A-BBE8-E1C05D887ACE@rocktreesky.com>

This was an idea raised during the August 8 IRC meeting. One thing  
that was pointed out is that we will probably need to create some  
pages as stub pages while we are in the process of getting the new  
Getting Involved handbook together. It would be great if there was a  
way for us to mark those stub pages so that it would be easy for the  
docs team to have an automated list of them rather than us needing to  
manually keep a list to refer back to as we work through them.

If we created a "documentation" vocabulary that had terms like stub,  
outdated, insecure code, etc. That would a) let us flag things so they  
would be easy to generate lists and b) maybe let us do some theme  
changes on those pages so we can easily indicate to readers the status  
of a handbook page. I think this could be quite cool, but I'm sure  
there are drawbacks to it as well. The main negative that I can think  
of is that it will clutter the node add/edit form even more and may  
confuse newbies if they feel like they *should* be selecting something  
but aren't sure what they are doing with it.

So, anyway, what do you think? DISCUSS. ;-)

- Addi (aka add1sun)

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sun Aug 10 11:39:46 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:39:46 -0400
Subject: [documentation] About/Getting started/Getting involved handbooks
Message-ID: <CB62B715-8322-4271-8302-1796342D3761@rocktreesky.com>

OK, so here is the last major discussion point that came out of the  
August 8 IRC meeting. Sorry for spamming the docs list. ;-)

As mentioned in the Summary email we raised the subject of what do  
about the new Getting Involved book in relation to the existing About  
and Getting Started books. The two options we were discussing were:

1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book.
2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing  
kinds of things to Getting started.

The idea/argument behind #1 is that we would retain an About book and  
that the contents of it would be shifted to focusing on information  
for "evaluator" types. This would have things like an overview of what  
this Drupal thing is and "marketing" stuff for lack of a better term -  
things like the Case studies/showcase site listing and "press" kinda  
stuff, if it exists. This wouldn't be a big book.

Option #2 is to just not have an About book anymore. We would "take it  
over" for the new Getting Involved book and move anything that isn't  
for Getting Involved into the Getting Started book instead.

My feeling is, and general IRC discussion leaned towards, option #1.  
The reasoning for that is that I feel like the Getting Started book  
should be mostly focused on actually doing stuff to get started and  
not have lots of extra information to sift through. I'd prefer that  
stuff about Drupal be in an "About" book and stuff about actually  
using Drupal be in the "Getting Started" book.

We need to make a decision on this relatively soon, as we hope to  
launch the new Getting Involved book in the next few weeks. So, PLEASE  
DISCUSS.

From brenda at alligatorsneeze.com  Mon Aug 11 01:57:49 2008
From: brenda at alligatorsneeze.com (Brenda Boggs)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:57:49 -0700
Subject: [documentation] About/Getting started/Getting involved handbooks
In-Reply-To: <CB62B715-8322-4271-8302-1796342D3761@rocktreesky.com>
References: <CB62B715-8322-4271-8302-1796342D3761@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <489F9C9D.8050507@alligatorsneeze.com>

I also like option #1.  The "About" section needs to be prominent, 
something evaluators can find very quickly, and that'd really be easiest 
if it's in it's own section.  The description needs to be more clear on 
what exactly is in the section.  Maybe even something along the lines 
of, "Before You Start" rather than "About".  If nothing else, a few 
prominent links such as a section on "What Can Drupal Do?" or what have 
you on the main handbook page.

Brenda

Addison Berry wrote:
> OK, so here is the last major discussion point that came out of the  
> August 8 IRC meeting. Sorry for spamming the docs list. ;-)
>
> As mentioned in the Summary email we raised the subject of what do  
> about the new Getting Involved book in relation to the existing About  
> and Getting Started books. The two options we were discussing were:
>
> 1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book.
> 2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing  
> kinds of things to Getting started.
>
> The idea/argument behind #1 is that we would retain an About book and  
> that the contents of it would be shifted to focusing on information  
> for "evaluator" types. This would have things like an overview of what  
> this Drupal thing is and "marketing" stuff for lack of a better term -  
> things like the Case studies/showcase site listing and "press" kinda  
> stuff, if it exists. This wouldn't be a big book.
>
> Option #2 is to just not have an About book anymore. We would "take it  
> over" for the new Getting Involved book and move anything that isn't  
> for Getting Involved into the Getting Started book instead.
>
> My feeling is, and general IRC discussion leaned towards, option #1.  
> The reasoning for that is that I feel like the Getting Started book  
> should be mostly focused on actually doing stuff to get started and  
> not have lots of extra information to sift through. I'd prefer that  
> stuff about Drupal be in an "About" book and stuff about actually  
> using Drupal be in the "Getting Started" book.
>
> We need to make a decision on this relatively soon, as we hope to  
> launch the new Getting Involved book in the next few weeks. So, PLEASE  
> DISCUSS.
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>   

-- 
Brenda Boggs
Drupal Consulting and Web Development
http://www.alligatorsneeze.com
brenda at alligatorsneeze.com
P: 760.201.3550
IM: denel003


From trevor at civicactions.com  Mon Aug 11 11:15:22 2008
From: trevor at civicactions.com (Trevor Twining)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:15:22 -0400
Subject: [documentation] About/Getting started/Getting involved handbooks
In-Reply-To: <489F9C9D.8050507@alligatorsneeze.com>
References: <CB62B715-8322-4271-8302-1796342D3761@rocktreesky.com>
	<489F9C9D.8050507@alligatorsneeze.com>
Message-ID: <48A01F4A.2050100@civicactions.com>

I agree; option 1 provides the focus in both use cases where it needs to be.

Brenda Boggs wrote:
> I also like option #1.  The "About" section needs to be prominent, 
> something evaluators can find very quickly, and that'd really be easiest 
> if it's in it's own section.  The description needs to be more clear on 
> what exactly is in the section.  Maybe even something along the lines 
> of, "Before You Start" rather than "About".  If nothing else, a few 
> prominent links such as a section on "What Can Drupal Do?" or what have 
> you on the main handbook page.
> 
> Brenda
> 
> Addison Berry wrote:
>> OK, so here is the last major discussion point that came out of the  
>> August 8 IRC meeting. Sorry for spamming the docs list. ;-)
>>
>> As mentioned in the Summary email we raised the subject of what do  
>> about the new Getting Involved book in relation to the existing About  
>> and Getting Started books. The two options we were discussing were:
>>
>> 1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book.
>> 2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing  
>> kinds of things to Getting started.
>>
>> The idea/argument behind #1 is that we would retain an About book and  
>> that the contents of it would be shifted to focusing on information  
>> for "evaluator" types. This would have things like an overview of what  
>> this Drupal thing is and "marketing" stuff for lack of a better term -  
>> things like the Case studies/showcase site listing and "press" kinda  
>> stuff, if it exists. This wouldn't be a big book.
>>
>> Option #2 is to just not have an About book anymore. We would "take it  
>> over" for the new Getting Involved book and move anything that isn't  
>> for Getting Involved into the Getting Started book instead.
>>
>> My feeling is, and general IRC discussion leaned towards, option #1.  
>> The reasoning for that is that I feel like the Getting Started book  
>> should be mostly focused on actually doing stuff to get started and  
>> not have lots of extra information to sift through. I'd prefer that  
>> stuff about Drupal be in an "About" book and stuff about actually  
>> using Drupal be in the "Getting Started" book.
>>
>> We need to make a decision on this relatively soon, as we hope to  
>> launch the new Getting Involved book in the next few weeks. So, PLEASE  
>> DISCUSS.
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>   
> 

-- 
Trevor Twining
skype/AIM: trevortwining
905-228-9990 (W)

From sepeck at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 16:08:36 2008
From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:08:36 -0700
Subject: [documentation] About/Getting started/Getting involved handbooks
In-Reply-To: <489F9C9D.8050507@alligatorsneeze.com>
References: <CB62B715-8322-4271-8302-1796342D3761@rocktreesky.com>
	<489F9C9D.8050507@alligatorsneeze.com>
Message-ID: <a151b5a00808110908w6b493656xcc2cee1bd4f359ed@mail.gmail.com>

Haven't we had this discussion several times already?

I had thought the About Drupal was to be about the Drupal community /
drupal.org and that all the marketing gunk that no one ever works on
more then few minutes would be separated out?

I know we've had people volunteer to do it before but then they go
poof 3 days later.

Steven

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Brenda Boggs
<brenda at alligatorsneeze.com> wrote:
> I also like option #1.  The "About" section needs to be prominent,
> something evaluators can find very quickly, and that'd really be easiest
> if it's in it's own section.  The description needs to be more clear on
> what exactly is in the section.  Maybe even something along the lines
> of, "Before You Start" rather than "About".  If nothing else, a few
> prominent links such as a section on "What Can Drupal Do?" or what have
> you on the main handbook page.
>
> Brenda
>
> Addison Berry wrote:
>> OK, so here is the last major discussion point that came out of the
>> August 8 IRC meeting. Sorry for spamming the docs list. ;-)
>>
>> As mentioned in the Summary email we raised the subject of what do
>> about the new Getting Involved book in relation to the existing About
>> and Getting Started books. The two options we were discussing were:
>>
>> 1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book.
>> 2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing
>> kinds of things to Getting started.
>>
>> The idea/argument behind #1 is that we would retain an About book and
>> that the contents of it would be shifted to focusing on information
>> for "evaluator" types. This would have things like an overview of what
>> this Drupal thing is and "marketing" stuff for lack of a better term -
>> things like the Case studies/showcase site listing and "press" kinda
>> stuff, if it exists. This wouldn't be a big book.
>>
>> Option #2 is to just not have an About book anymore. We would "take it
>> over" for the new Getting Involved book and move anything that isn't
>> for Getting Involved into the Getting Started book instead.
>>
>> My feeling is, and general IRC discussion leaned towards, option #1.
>> The reasoning for that is that I feel like the Getting Started book
>> should be mostly focused on actually doing stuff to get started and
>> not have lots of extra information to sift through. I'd prefer that
>> stuff about Drupal be in an "About" book and stuff about actually
>> using Drupal be in the "Getting Started" book.
>>
>> We need to make a decision on this relatively soon, as we hope to
>> launch the new Getting Involved book in the next few weeks. So, PLEASE
>> DISCUSS.
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
>
> --
> Brenda Boggs
> Drupal Consulting and Web Development
> http://www.alligatorsneeze.com
> brenda at alligatorsneeze.com
> P: 760.201.3550
> IM: denel003
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Tue Aug 12 20:38:48 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:38:48 -0400
Subject: [documentation] About/Getting started/Getting involved handbooks
In-Reply-To: <a151b5a00808110908w6b493656xcc2cee1bd4f359ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CB62B715-8322-4271-8302-1796342D3761@rocktreesky.com>
	<489F9C9D.8050507@alligatorsneeze.com>
	<a151b5a00808110908w6b493656xcc2cee1bd4f359ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <780C0A50-DC95-4FA2-97D7-0EE3D621CEBA@rocktreesky.com>

Well,  I've had the conversation once before and it was left that we  
would probably get rid of the About book and just split it up between  
Getting started and the new one. I changed my feelings on it with more  
time to contemplate it and now that we are preparing to actually do  
the major reorg very soon, I wanted to make sure we were all on board  
with how we should do it.

I'm not really concerned about "marketing people" and what they do or  
do not do/want to do, but I do want the material we already have to be  
easier for evaluators to find.

Basically I just wanted to be clear, myself, on whether to "take over"  
the About book for the new one or not. Seems like the general idea is  
not. That is the main clarification that I needed.

- Addi


On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Steven Peck wrote:

> Haven't we had this discussion several times already?
>
> I had thought the About Drupal was to be about the Drupal community /
> drupal.org and that all the marketing gunk that no one ever works on
> more then few minutes would be separated out?
>
> I know we've had people volunteer to do it before but then they go
> poof 3 days later.
>
> Steven
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Brenda Boggs
> <brenda at alligatorsneeze.com> wrote:
>> I also like option #1.  The "About" section needs to be prominent,
>> something evaluators can find very quickly, and that'd really be  
>> easiest
>> if it's in it's own section.  The description needs to be more  
>> clear on
>> what exactly is in the section.  Maybe even something along the lines
>> of, "Before You Start" rather than "About".  If nothing else, a few
>> prominent links such as a section on "What Can Drupal Do?" or what  
>> have
>> you on the main handbook page.
>>
>> Brenda
>>
>> Addison Berry wrote:
>>> OK, so here is the last major discussion point that came out of the
>>> August 8 IRC meeting. Sorry for spamming the docs list. ;-)
>>>
>>> As mentioned in the Summary email we raised the subject of what do
>>> about the new Getting Involved book in relation to the existing  
>>> About
>>> and Getting Started books. The two options we were discussing were:
>>>
>>> 1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book.
>>> 2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing
>>> kinds of things to Getting started.
>>>
>>> The idea/argument behind #1 is that we would retain an About book  
>>> and
>>> that the contents of it would be shifted to focusing on information
>>> for "evaluator" types. This would have things like an overview of  
>>> what
>>> this Drupal thing is and "marketing" stuff for lack of a better  
>>> term -
>>> things like the Case studies/showcase site listing and "press" kinda
>>> stuff, if it exists. This wouldn't be a big book.
>>>
>>> Option #2 is to just not have an About book anymore. We would  
>>> "take it
>>> over" for the new Getting Involved book and move anything that isn't
>>> for Getting Involved into the Getting Started book instead.
>>>
>>> My feeling is, and general IRC discussion leaned towards, option #1.
>>> The reasoning for that is that I feel like the Getting Started book
>>> should be mostly focused on actually doing stuff to get started and
>>> not have lots of extra information to sift through. I'd prefer that
>>> stuff about Drupal be in an "About" book and stuff about actually
>>> using Drupal be in the "Getting Started" book.
>>>
>>> We need to make a decision on this relatively soon, as we hope to
>>> launch the new Getting Involved book in the next few weeks. So,  
>>> PLEASE
>>> DISCUSS.
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brenda Boggs
>> Drupal Consulting and Web Development
>> http://www.alligatorsneeze.com
>> brenda at alligatorsneeze.com
>> P: 760.201.3550
>> IM: denel003
>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/


From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Tue Aug 12 20:45:12 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:45:12 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Plan the next IRC meeting
In-Reply-To: <D13CAB9D-A9B5-4C0E-979D-F13115E65482@rocktreesky.com>
References: <D13CAB9D-A9B5-4C0E-979D-F13115E65482@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <5C1919C4-41CE-4ECA-92DE-EB715E5975E7@rocktreesky.com>

Forgot to add: Please indicate your preference for day/time on Doodle  
by 21:00 GMT, Thursday, Aug. 14 (3 pm EDT, noon PDT). That way we can  
get the time finalized at least a week ahead of time so people can  
plan accordingly.

Thanks
- Addi (aka add1sun)

On Aug 9, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Addison Berry wrote:

> During the Aug. 8 meeting it was decided we should meet again before  
> DrupalCon Szeged, which starts August 27.
>
> I've created a Doodle for Aug 21, 22, 23 at http://www.doodle.ch/c4mu7fcqzhhuqsnh 
>  Please fill out times you are available so we can pick a good time.
>
> As usual, the meeting will last for 1 hour and be held on the  
> freenode #drupal-docs IRC channel. Open to all, even folks that just  
> want to lurk. :-)
>
> Besides doodling for time, also feel free to respond to this email  
> to add items to the agenda.
>
> Currently on the agenda:
> - See where we are on the new Getting Involved handbook section  
> being filled out.
> - Brainstorm on tasks for the DrupalCon docs sprint. (There is a BoF  
> during DrupalCon to help organize this but the more ideas we have  
> before the sprint the better.)
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080812/6e1583ac/attachment.htm 

From sepeck at gmail.com  Tue Aug 12 22:00:34 2008
From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:00:34 -0700
Subject: [documentation] About/Getting started/Getting involved handbooks
In-Reply-To: <780C0A50-DC95-4FA2-97D7-0EE3D621CEBA@rocktreesky.com>
References: <CB62B715-8322-4271-8302-1796342D3761@rocktreesky.com>
	<489F9C9D.8050507@alligatorsneeze.com>
	<a151b5a00808110908w6b493656xcc2cee1bd4f359ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<780C0A50-DC95-4FA2-97D7-0EE3D621CEBA@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <a151b5a00808121500m788bae97s7ffda2fcbfbfd720@mail.gmail.com>

By all means, take it over.  It's a random collection of things
already but has a trafficked well known url /about.

I would like to see a refined missions / statement of purpose for it
to help people in future determine what goes in it.  I will clear up
one for the Getting Started one myself and try and post it soonish as
well.

Anything that doesn't fit in the new clear guidelines for /about would
go in a new book.  Does that work?

We could tag in the log that it is owned by .... you?


On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Addison Berry <drupal at rocktreesky.com> wrote:
> Well,  I've had the conversation once before and it was left that we
> would probably get rid of the About book and just split it up between
> Getting started and the new one. I changed my feelings on it with more
> time to contemplate it and now that we are preparing to actually do
> the major reorg very soon, I wanted to make sure we were all on board
> with how we should do it.
>
> I'm not really concerned about "marketing people" and what they do or
> do not do/want to do, but I do want the material we already have to be
> easier for evaluators to find.
>
> Basically I just wanted to be clear, myself, on whether to "take over"
> the About book for the new one or not. Seems like the general idea is
> not. That is the main clarification that I needed.
>
> - Addi
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Steven Peck wrote:
>
>> Haven't we had this discussion several times already?
>>
>> I had thought the About Drupal was to be about the Drupal community /
>> drupal.org and that all the marketing gunk that no one ever works on
>> more then few minutes would be separated out?
>>
>> I know we've had people volunteer to do it before but then they go
>> poof 3 days later.
>>
>> Steven
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Brenda Boggs
>> <brenda at alligatorsneeze.com> wrote:
>>> I also like option #1.  The "About" section needs to be prominent,
>>> something evaluators can find very quickly, and that'd really be
>>> easiest
>>> if it's in it's own section.  The description needs to be more
>>> clear on
>>> what exactly is in the section.  Maybe even something along the lines
>>> of, "Before You Start" rather than "About".  If nothing else, a few
>>> prominent links such as a section on "What Can Drupal Do?" or what
>>> have
>>> you on the main handbook page.
>>>
>>> Brenda
>>>
>>> Addison Berry wrote:
>>>> OK, so here is the last major discussion point that came out of the
>>>> August 8 IRC meeting. Sorry for spamming the docs list. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned in the Summary email we raised the subject of what do
>>>> about the new Getting Involved book in relation to the existing
>>>> About
>>>> and Getting Started books. The two options we were discussing were:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Create the new book in addition to About. Rework the About book.
>>>> 2. Have the new book replace the About book. Move non-contributing
>>>> kinds of things to Getting started.
>>>>
>>>> The idea/argument behind #1 is that we would retain an About book
>>>> and
>>>> that the contents of it would be shifted to focusing on information
>>>> for "evaluator" types. This would have things like an overview of
>>>> what
>>>> this Drupal thing is and "marketing" stuff for lack of a better
>>>> term -
>>>> things like the Case studies/showcase site listing and "press" kinda
>>>> stuff, if it exists. This wouldn't be a big book.
>>>>
>>>> Option #2 is to just not have an About book anymore. We would
>>>> "take it
>>>> over" for the new Getting Involved book and move anything that isn't
>>>> for Getting Involved into the Getting Started book instead.
>>>>
>>>> My feeling is, and general IRC discussion leaned towards, option #1.
>>>> The reasoning for that is that I feel like the Getting Started book
>>>> should be mostly focused on actually doing stuff to get started and
>>>> not have lots of extra information to sift through. I'd prefer that
>>>> stuff about Drupal be in an "About" book and stuff about actually
>>>> using Drupal be in the "Getting Started" book.
>>>>
>>>> We need to make a decision on this relatively soon, as we hope to
>>>> launch the new Getting Involved book in the next few weeks. So,
>>>> PLEASE
>>>> DISCUSS.
>>>> --
>>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brenda Boggs
>>> Drupal Consulting and Web Development
>>> http://www.alligatorsneeze.com
>>> brenda at alligatorsneeze.com
>>> P: 760.201.3550
>>> IM: denel003
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Fri Aug 15 11:37:09 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:37:09 -0400
Subject: [documentation]  Next IRC meeting: Aug 21 at Midnight GMT
In-Reply-To: <D13CAB9D-A9B5-4C0E-979D-F13115E65482@rocktreesky.com>
References: <D13CAB9D-A9B5-4C0E-979D-F13115E65482@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <3F6C1C90-DFFC-4FA0-88B7-64AAE09BC0F7@rocktreesky.com>

OK, the Doodle tells all.

We will have the next IRC meeting at Midnight GMT (8pm EDT, 5pm PDT)  
Thursday, August 21, 2008.

Current agenda is below. This should also remind everyone that we have  
one week to get the Getting Involved section issues (http://drupal.org/project/issues?projects=18753&text=Contrib%20Redesign 
: )  fleshed out . So, please, if you can, take an hour of time in the  
next week to look at the issues and either comment or track down  
existing pages and add them. Thanks!

Also for anyone that may not have seen, I did a front page post on d.o  
earlier in the week to let the community know what we are up to (http://drupal.org/node/293455 
). I'd like folks to have some heads-up when we do the big reorg adn  
it never hurt to try to drum up more support. ;-)

- Addi


On Aug 9, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Addison Berry wrote:

> During the Aug. 8 meeting it was decided we should meet again before  
> DrupalCon Szeged, which starts August 27.
>
> I've created a Doodle for Aug 21, 22, 23 at http://www.doodle.ch/c4mu7fcqzhhuqsnh 
>  Please fill out times you are available so we can pick a good time.
>
> As usual, the meeting will last for 1 hour and be held on the  
> freenode #drupal-docs IRC channel. Open to all, even folks that just  
> want to lurk. :-)
>
> Besides doodling for time, also feel free to respond to this email  
> to add items to the agenda.
>
> Currently on the agenda:
> - See where we are on the new Getting Involved handbook section  
> being filled out.
> - Brainstorm on tasks for the DrupalCon docs sprint. (There is a BoF  
> during DrupalCon to help organize this but the more ideas we have  
> before the sprint the better.)
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080815/66fdb477/attachment.htm 

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sun Aug 17 10:54:15 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:54:15 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Docs issue queue component list feedback
Message-ID: <57AB09ED-4832-4CB8-93B2-ABB909E4859E@rocktreesky.com>

Hey folks,

So over in the issue queue Zirvap (Hilde) and I have hammered out a  
new list of items for the "component" list when creating a new docs  
issue: http://drupal.org/node/236767. It currently lists outdated  
books, making it hard for people to know where to put things. We  
worked out a new list based on the type of task, rather than the  
books.  This is an easy enough thing for me to change technically but  
before I do, I want to make sure we are happy with the list since we  
won't be changing it again willy-nilly. The reason we can't chage the  
components on a whim is that any existing issues that have a component  
that is no longer on the new list will get a validation error when  
commenting on the issue. What does that men? Here is an example:

This issue (http://drupal.org/node/70206) on permissions documentation  
is currently using the "Admin Guide" component. When we switch to the  
new component list (and Admin Guide will no longer be an option), then  
the next time someone goes to post a comment to that issue they will  
receive a validation error when they try to submit. They will have to  
select a new, available component to submit their comment. Now this is  
't horrible but it is annoying and will probably be confusing for  
folks that don't understand what is going on.

Soooo, that means I only want to do it once. :-) Please have a look at http://drupal.org/node/236767 
  and chime in. I don't want the haggling to go on forever though. ;-)  
I'd like feedback this week (and if you are fine with the list as is,  
please give your +1 as well) and we'll make the change during the week  
of DrupalCon Szeged (Aug 27 - 31).

Thanks all
- Addi (add1sun)

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Thu Aug 21 22:02:56 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:02:56 -0400
Subject: [documentation] REMINDER: IRC meeting in 2 hours: Aug 21 at
	Midnight GMT
In-Reply-To: <3F6C1C90-DFFC-4FA0-88B7-64AAE09BC0F7@rocktreesky.com>
References: <D13CAB9D-A9B5-4C0E-979D-F13115E65482@rocktreesky.com>
	<3F6C1C90-DFFC-4FA0-88B7-64AAE09BC0F7@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <97357164-5094-4AE0-974A-337944C34D0F@rocktreesky.com>

Just a lil' reminder. ;-)

On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Addison Berry wrote:

> OK, the Doodle tells all.
>
> We will have the next IRC meeting at Midnight GMT (8pm EDT, 5pm PDT)  
> Thursday, August 21, 2008.
>
> Current agenda is below. This should also remind everyone that we  
> have one week to get the Getting Involved section issues (http://drupal.org/project/issues?projects=18753&text=Contrib%20Redesign 
> : )  fleshed out . So, please, if you can, take an hour of time in  
> the next week to look at the issues and either comment or track down  
> existing pages and add them. Thanks!
>
> Also for anyone that may not have seen, I did a front page post on  
> d.o earlier in the week to let the community know what we are up to (http://drupal.org/node/293455 
> ). I'd like folks to have some heads-up when we do the big reorg adn  
> it never hurt to try to drum up more support. ;-)
>
> - Addi
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Addison Berry wrote:
>
>> During the Aug. 8 meeting it was decided we should meet again  
>> before DrupalCon Szeged, which starts August 27.
>>
>> I've created a Doodle for Aug 21, 22, 23 at http://www.doodle.ch/c4mu7fcqzhhuqsnh 
>>  Please fill out times you are available so we can pick a good time.
>>
>> As usual, the meeting will last for 1 hour and be held on the  
>> freenode #drupal-docs IRC channel. Open to all, even folks that  
>> just want to lurk. :-)
>>
>> Besides doodling for time, also feel free to respond to this email  
>> to add items to the agenda.
>>
>> Currently on the agenda:
>> - See where we are on the new Getting Involved handbook section  
>> being filled out.
>> - Brainstorm on tasks for the DrupalCon docs sprint. (There is a  
>> BoF during DrupalCon to help organize this but the more ideas we  
>> have before the sprint the better.)
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080821/8b33a914/attachment.htm 

From mgparisi at rochester.rr.com  Thu Aug 21 23:53:53 2008
From: mgparisi at rochester.rr.com (Mike Parisi)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:53:53 -0400
Subject: [documentation] REMINDER: IRC meeting in 2 hours: Aug 21
	atMidnight GMT
References: <D13CAB9D-A9B5-4C0E-979D-F13115E65482@rocktreesky.com><3F6C1C90-DFFC-4FA0-88B7-64AAE09BC0F7@rocktreesky.com>
	<97357164-5094-4AE0-974A-337944C34D0F@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <B78847A3932E40EFA46DCE6F16AEF543@Monster>

Your forgot the IRC channel!


From: Addison Berry 
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:02 PM
To: A list for documentation writers 
Subject: [documentation] REMINDER: IRC meeting in 2 hours: Aug 21 atMidnight GMT


Just a lil' reminder. ;-) 


On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Addison Berry wrote:


  OK, the Doodle tells all.


  We will have the next IRC meeting at Midnight GMT (8pm EDT, 5pm PDT) Thursday, August 21, 2008.


  Current agenda is below. This should also remind everyone that we have one week to get the Getting Involved section issues (http://drupal.org/project/issues?projects=18753&text=Contrib%20Redesign: )  fleshed out . So, please, if you can, take an hour of time in the next week to look at the issues and either comment or track down existing pages and add them. Thanks! 


  Also for anyone that may not have seen, I did a front page post on d.o earlier in the week to let the community know what we are up to (http://drupal.org/node/293455). I'd like folks to have some heads-up when we do the big reorg adn it never hurt to try to drum up more support. ;-)


  - Addi





  On Aug 9, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Addison Berry wrote:


    During the Aug. 8 meeting it was decided we should meet again before DrupalCon Szeged, which starts August 27. 


    I've created a Doodle for Aug 21, 22, 23 at http://www.doodle.ch/c4mu7fcqzhhuqsnh Please fill out times you are available so we can pick a good time.


    As usual, the meeting will last for 1 hour and be held on the freenode #drupal-docs IRC channel. Open to all, even folks that just want to lurk. :-)


    Besides doodling for time, also feel free to respond to this email to add items to the agenda.


    Currently on the agenda:
    - See where we are on the new Getting Involved handbook section being filled out.
    - Brainstorm on tasks for the DrupalCon docs sprint. (There is a BoF during DrupalCon to help organize this but the more ideas we have before the sprint the better.)
    --
    Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
    List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/


  --
  Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
  List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080821/53ea92ed/attachment.htm 

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sat Aug 23 11:27:55 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:27:55 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Summary of Aug. 21 IRC meeting
Message-ID: <60CADCC2-CFE6-4591-BAD7-41EA8650E79F@rocktreesky.com>

Here is a short summary and link to the IRC logs for the Aug, 21  
meeting. Thanks to everyone who came, especially the new folks! Our  
next "meeting" will be the sprint on August 31. I'll be sending a  
separate email out to the team with more information about the sprint  
and how we will tie in folks that aren't in Szeged.

IRC log: http://pastebin.com/f5f2a83cd

We had 2 agenda items on deck from the mail list and 2 added at the  
beginning. The final agenda of 4 items:
1. Getting Involved handbook status
2. Doc sprint ideas
3. Getting started guide issues
4. Programming best practices page

1. Getting Involved handbook status
	Basically we looked at the queue (http://drupal.org/project/issues?text=Contrib 
  redesign:&states=1,16,8,13,14,15,2,4), noted that we will have work  
to do and reviewed what needs to be done for those that were new or  
not clear about what the issues entailed. We have gotten a bunch of  
work done on the issues and most of them are CNW or CNR. We have a few  
issues that still need attention. We will keep working on these  
through DrupalCon week and hopefully we can reorg soon. We cana't  
reorg til the issues are sussed out though.

2. Doc sprint ideas
	I posted a starter list of both tasks to do during the sprint as well  
as larger discussions that need to happen. The floor was opened for  
others to add to the list. I have posted the results (plus a few more  
I thought of after) on the DrupalCon site (http://szeged2008.drupalcon.org/node/1629 
). Please feel free to add to the list either in that forum post or on  
the mail list.

3. Getting started guide issues
	This was raised by Josh and so we *briefly* discussed the issue we  
have with the Guide being in DocBook that is not in CVS and what that  
means for updating the guide. (I.e. either we can't update pages  
without a long process or if we do update the pages, then the PDF and  
handbook are out of sync. Also not all site maintainers, that have  
rights to edit these pages, realize they shouldn't edit them.) This is  
a topic for discussion on the sprint list so we will delve into this  
conversation more at that time.

4. Programming best practices page
	aj045 has created a new page (http://drupal.org/node/287350) and  
wanted to get feedback on the idea of it. This is a general  
programming best practices guide. The consensus seemed to be that it  
was a good idea but that it should try to stay as narrowly focused as  
possible.

- Addi (add1sun)

From vishakhatambe.mcs at gmail.com  Sat Aug 23 12:08:40 2008
From: vishakhatambe.mcs at gmail.com (Vishakha Tambe)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:38:40 +0530
Subject: [documentation] Drupal Architecture
Message-ID: <b47bc3b80808230508i796f5a92l494aa41746afdd9e@mail.gmail.com>

Can anybody give me the documentation for drupal which shows diagramatically
working of different modules. e.g. Forum, Blog, Comment etc.

Regards,
   Vishakha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080823/e523e1ea/attachment.htm 

From sepeck at gmail.com  Sun Aug 24 00:38:35 2008
From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:38:35 -0700
Subject: [documentation] Drupal Architecture
In-Reply-To: <b47bc3b80808230508i796f5a92l494aa41746afdd9e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b47bc3b80808230508i796f5a92l494aa41746afdd9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a151b5a00808231738g2edbdfj87f2dd6ce511a9fa@mail.gmail.com>

I don;t know that any exist currently.

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Vishakha Tambe
<vishakhatambe.mcs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can anybody give me the documentation for drupal which shows diagramatically
> working of different modules. e.g. Forum, Blog, Comment etc.
>
> Regards,
>    Vishakha
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From vishakhatambe.mcs at gmail.com  Mon Aug 25 07:49:15 2008
From: vishakhatambe.mcs at gmail.com (Vishakha Tambe)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:19:15 +0530
Subject: [documentation] Architecture of Drupal
Message-ID: <b47bc3b80808250049g3af910adl9568b565f5d4bc98@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,
   Can anybody plz help me, i want to prepare a documentation for my
project. For that i want diagrammatic representation/workflow of each module
in drupal, e.g. forum, blog, comment etc.
Plz reply.

Regards,
   Vishakha.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080825/334917b2/attachment.htm 

From lee.hunter at hum.com  Mon Aug 25 11:33:54 2008
From: lee.hunter at hum.com (Lee Hunter)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:33:54 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Architecture of Drupal
In-Reply-To: <b47bc3b80808250049g3af910adl9568b565f5d4bc98@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b47bc3b80808250049g3af910adl9568b565f5d4bc98@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <197f52f50808250433s1818ec1dkdf9deb1990d6f49e@mail.gmail.com>

It's not exactly what you're looking for but here are a few diagrams:

http://drupal.org/files/drupal_flow_0.gif
http://drupal.org/files/issues/processing.png
http://archivemati.ca/wp-content/images/Drupal_as_MVC_Framework.png
http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal5RC1_Database_0.png

Try searches for "drupal architecture", "drupal schema" etc. in the
Google image tab. Just be careful to look at the context. Some of the
images might be either outdated or else things that people have
proposed for the future.

Lee H.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Vishakha Tambe
<vishakhatambe.mcs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>    Can anybody plz help me, i want to prepare a documentation for my
> project. For that i want diagrammatic representation/workflow of each module
> in drupal, e.g. forum, blog, comment etc.
> Plz reply.
>
> Regards,
>    Vishakha.
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From pwgdarchive at gmail.com  Thu Aug 28 08:38:59 2008
From: pwgdarchive at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benjamin_Melan=E7on?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:38:59 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Documentation taxonomy?
In-Reply-To: <7A448460-AD30-465A-BBE8-E1C05D887ACE@rocktreesky.com>
References: <7A448460-AD30-465A-BBE8-E1C05D887ACE@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <1406bb8f0808280138q3c967c9bs3266b4d2fc86d7ec@mail.gmail.com>

All for using taxonomy to flag more information about handbook pages.
If we can add this customization to drupal.org the vocabulary could be
de-emphasized with theming (or just moved down with form_alter) or
even hidden from some roles on the node add/edit page.

(For presentation of information regarding assigned terms, an
alternative to theming is http://drupal.org/project/term_message which
was written for documentation purposes and I'd rewrite it to meet any
handbook needs.)

benjamin

Agaric Design Collective
Open Source Free Software Web Development
http://agaricdesign.com/

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Thu Aug 28 11:13:01 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:13:01 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Doc Sprint: Aug. 31 7:00 - 19:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36923901-08A9-4D75-8582-33FB0BBE67B4@rocktreesky.com>

The venue is available to us from 07:00 to 15:00 GMT. That doesn't  
give reasonable time for folks in North America to take part so even  
though we'll need to leave the venue I plan to find an internet  
connection and bring the sprint back online from 16:00 to 19:00 GMT.  
This evening bit may be a lot more fluid since I don't know where I  
will be and when I can settle down with internet. So if you don't see  
me on from 16:00 to 19:00, that will just be how things roll. :-/

The plan is to be very task focused in the morning and then the  
afternoon/evening will be more focused on discussion of some of the  
bigger topics. Of course, tasks can keep going all day, but I want to  
have a decent number of folks focused on the discussions when they  
come up so that we can hammer on them as a team.

Hopefully we can accomplish task #1 early on in the day and as others  
show up to help we can have a handy doc page to point folks to. I (and  
I hope others as well) will be available to answer questions and give  
guidance so please don't feel like you have to know how to do anything  
or even what you will do before you come (either in person or online).  
The main idea here is for people to learn and get to know each other  
while hopefully getting some work done. ;-)

Here is a list of the tasks we have on deck:
================================
** High priority
Create a docs task list/how to for common tasks
Review the doc team style guide
- Update the headings page and any other outdated pages
- Add a new page re: guidelines for handbook page screenshots
** Stuff that needs doing
Issue queue cleanup (removing old/invalid issues, fixing and closing  
easy ones)
Reset doc issue components (an email about this change will be going  
out later today)
Roll comments into the handbook and delete unnecessary comments
Adding screenshots
Section reviews (esp. good for newbies) Read and verify that sections  
make sense and howtos work.
For coder types: api.drupal.org fixes and code review

There will be several topics up for discussion. I will send an  
individual email to the list for each one. Folks can weigh in on the  
list if they can't make the sprint. We probably won't get to all of  
them during sprint day and the discussions will surely continue on the  
list after the sprint.

Getting started section and maintaining "core" docs
Ideas to manage i18n (mostly focused on the "core" docs and related to  
that solution at this time. i18n of regular handbook pages is further  
off, but open for discussion.)
"Versioned" sections that apply to more than version
4.7 and older docs/the Archive book
Ways to incentivize/acknowledge doc contributions

See ya there!
Addi (add1sun)

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Fri Aug 29 08:55:24 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:55:24 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Help reset doc issue queue components
Message-ID: <66597912-720D-4567-A6D0-B4BF1489B084@rocktreesky.com>

Hello all,

We have changed the doc issue queue component list pursuant to the  
issue I referred to last week (http://drupal.org/node/236767). I've  
posted a notice about it to the d.o forums (http://drupal.org/node/301443 
) as well to inform as many people in the community as I can. As  
mentioned in that post, the main thing that we need to do is start  
marching though the queue and resetting components. Feel free to pick  
a page and run through a few as you have time. I'mmost concerned about  
hitting the newer issues since they are most likely to be active and  
cause the most consternation for folks that don't know what's going  
on. :-) We'll be slating this as a task to do on Sunday during the  
sprint as well, but please don't wait if you have time prior to then.

Thanks to everyone that helped on the issue and really think this will  
be one of those small things that makes our work easier.

- Addi (add1sun)

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Fri Aug 29 09:31:47 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:31:47 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
Message-ID: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>

I'll start by apologizing for the long email here but I think this  
deserves more than a few sentences. Also note that at the end I've got  
a deadline for responses of Sept. 8. ;-)

So I have a proposal to put out to the team regarding opening up  
editing rights to all authenticated users on d.o. This would be a big  
change and I'd like us to really hammer this out in discussion so that  
we identify and address pitfalls ahead of time as well as possible. I  
have long been a proponent of absolutely *not* opening this up and I  
still have concerns about it, but I'd like to see what the community  
would really do with it. The Drupal community is very different now  
than it was several years ago, whether it is different in a way that  
would make open editing successful this time remains a question.

Before I get to it, a bit of history:
This has been done in the past and failed. Years ago all auth users  
were allowed to edit the handbook and there was too much vandalism and  
spam to be caught and cleaned up by the community. This is still a  
concern and not one to be taken lightly.

But there are some definite points to be looked at:
* It requires MUCH less knowledge and time to fix a typo than it does  
to author a new page. Same with rolling in comments, another common  
task that the docs team is stretched a bit thin on.
* New users are the best poised to ferret out errors in documentation,  
but also the least likely to create new pages.
* While the barrier to joining the documentation team is low, it is a  
barrier nonetheless, and one that is non-obvious to new users, whose  
input we need the most. I've also found that many new people just  
won't take the step to ask because they feel that it means they have a  
certain time obligation that they don't feel they can "commit" to.

Some issues we will need to look at:
* We have a mix of input formats out there and anything above Filtered  
HTML needs to be restricted for security reasons. So even if we open  
it up there will definitely be many pages that folks can't edit unless  
they join the team, particularly pages with images. We can explain  
this and make it clear what is going on but there will still be a lot  
of folks that don't read wherever we happen to explain it and will  
complain a lot. So we need to be ready for lots of forum posts/issues/ 
irc pings about this unless someone has any other brilliant ideas  
about it. ;-) We should have a standard explanation written up that we  
can point people to and/or copy/paste into emails, etc.
* We are going to get vandalism, no doubt. So the trick is to see if  
the community can actually self-maintain fairly well and keep up with  
it. The doc team in particular will need to make an extra effort to  
keep an eye on things and be as responsive as possible about reverting  
things and helping clean it up. this is the kicker and if this doesn't  
happen, then this fail. Any and all ideas about ways to help us track  
what is happen and deal with it quickly are welcome. One thing that  
comes to mind is that we do have a Recent updates page (http://drupal.org/handbook/updates 
) and it would reduce a click if the table included a link directly to  
the revisions tab of the page in question so you could easily review  
the list, see the revision history and get a quick diff on changes.  
This would require a patch to the d.o module so I'll write up a patch  
for that either Sunday or next week.
* Any other issues we are missing here?

The idea is to try this out as a test. Here is my general plan. Help  
me shore it up:
Open up general handbook page editing to authenticated users (since  
they can only edit Filtered HTML nodes, the Getting Started Guide and  
other more "official" resources would be off-limits) for a trial  
period of one month. Publicize what the deal is, and then assess the  
number of reversions needed, and decide if we will continue or close  
back up. We can extend the test a month at a time until we are sure of  
our decision and just keep communicating with the community about what  
the progress is. Basically, the community has asked for this and I  
want to see if we can really handle it. If it works, awesome, if it  
doesn't then this will give us some recent experience and data to  
consider when the request is raised again.

So, let's talk about this on the mail list for a week or so and get  
ourselves aligned about whether to agree to the proposal or not and  
also hash out idea for how to actually deal with it. Please respond  
with your thoughts to this list by September 8.

Thanks
- Addi (add1sun)


From trevortwining at gmail.com  Fri Aug 29 14:06:57 2008
From: trevortwining at gmail.com (Trevor Twining)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:06:57 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <48B80281.6050407@gmail.com>

Addi,

I think you're right that it's a good time to bring this up again.

I'm not certain a large number of people will participate. That's not
necessarily a bad thing, though. Even if we just get *more* people
participating, then we're improving our reach and that's a success.

In any case, if there's a mechanism to keep an eye on the diffs, even if
it's just the Recent Updates then I can participate in watching the
queue as items come in. I'm sitting here at my desk anyway. :) I'm also
usually in IRC too, and we could use a little activity in there.

The community has grown a lot since the last time this was tried, so I
think it's a good time to give it another try. If it doesn't work out,
then maybe at the end we've recruited another couple team members.
That's not a bad outcome either.

TT

Addison Berry wrote:
> I'll start by apologizing for the long email here but I think this  
> deserves more than a few sentences. Also note that at the end I've got  
> a deadline for responses of Sept. 8. ;-)
> 
> So I have a proposal to put out to the team regarding opening up  
> editing rights to all authenticated users on d.o. This would be a big  
> change and I'd like us to really hammer this out in discussion so that  
> we identify and address pitfalls ahead of time as well as possible. I  
> have long been a proponent of absolutely *not* opening this up and I  
> still have concerns about it, but I'd like to see what the community  
> would really do with it. The Drupal community is very different now  
> than it was several years ago, whether it is different in a way that  
> would make open editing successful this time remains a question.
> 
> Before I get to it, a bit of history:
> This has been done in the past and failed. Years ago all auth users  
> were allowed to edit the handbook and there was too much vandalism and  
> spam to be caught and cleaned up by the community. This is still a  
> concern and not one to be taken lightly.
> 
> But there are some definite points to be looked at:
> * It requires MUCH less knowledge and time to fix a typo than it does  
> to author a new page. Same with rolling in comments, another common  
> task that the docs team is stretched a bit thin on.
> * New users are the best poised to ferret out errors in documentation,  
> but also the least likely to create new pages.
> * While the barrier to joining the documentation team is low, it is a  
> barrier nonetheless, and one that is non-obvious to new users, whose  
> input we need the most. I've also found that many new people just  
> won't take the step to ask because they feel that it means they have a  
> certain time obligation that they don't feel they can "commit" to.
> 
> Some issues we will need to look at:
> * We have a mix of input formats out there and anything above Filtered  
> HTML needs to be restricted for security reasons. So even if we open  
> it up there will definitely be many pages that folks can't edit unless  
> they join the team, particularly pages with images. We can explain  
> this and make it clear what is going on but there will still be a lot  
> of folks that don't read wherever we happen to explain it and will  
> complain a lot. So we need to be ready for lots of forum posts/issues/ 
> irc pings about this unless someone has any other brilliant ideas  
> about it. ;-) We should have a standard explanation written up that we  
> can point people to and/or copy/paste into emails, etc.
> * We are going to get vandalism, no doubt. So the trick is to see if  
> the community can actually self-maintain fairly well and keep up with  
> it. The doc team in particular will need to make an extra effort to  
> keep an eye on things and be as responsive as possible about reverting  
> things and helping clean it up. this is the kicker and if this doesn't  
> happen, then this fail. Any and all ideas about ways to help us track  
> what is happen and deal with it quickly are welcome. One thing that  
> comes to mind is that we do have a Recent updates page (http://drupal.org/handbook/updates 
> ) and it would reduce a click if the table included a link directly to  
> the revisions tab of the page in question so you could easily review  
> the list, see the revision history and get a quick diff on changes.  
> This would require a patch to the d.o module so I'll write up a patch  
> for that either Sunday or next week.
> * Any other issues we are missing here?
> 
> The idea is to try this out as a test. Here is my general plan. Help  
> me shore it up:
> Open up general handbook page editing to authenticated users (since  
> they can only edit Filtered HTML nodes, the Getting Started Guide and  
> other more "official" resources would be off-limits) for a trial  
> period of one month. Publicize what the deal is, and then assess the  
> number of reversions needed, and decide if we will continue or close  
> back up. We can extend the test a month at a time until we are sure of  
> our decision and just keep communicating with the community about what  
> the progress is. Basically, the community has asked for this and I  
> want to see if we can really handle it. If it works, awesome, if it  
> doesn't then this will give us some recent experience and data to  
> consider when the request is raised again.
> 
> So, let's talk about this on the mail list for a week or so and get  
> ourselves aligned about whether to agree to the proposal or not and  
> also hash out idea for how to actually deal with it. Please respond  
> with your thoughts to this list by September 8.
> 
> Thanks
> - Addi (add1sun)
> 
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> 

-- 
Trevor Twining
http://www.trevortwining.com
mail:trevortwining at gmail.com | skype:trevortwining
http://civicactions.com/team/trevor_twining

From joshua at brauerranch.com  Fri Aug 29 15:20:05 2008
From: joshua at brauerranch.com (Joshua Brauer)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:20:05 -0600
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <C872D051-6A6B-49B2-B4F2-9274FF697A7D@brauerranch.com>



It's certainly worth giving it a try.

While editing the d.o module it might be good to look at adding some  
verbiage about the style guide and anything else that would be helpful  
in the node form for book pages. Whether or not the editing remains  
open this would be handy for people creating new pages as well as  
handy links for anyone editing the form. Perhaps even a handbook  
editing pseudo block on the form (providing a little CSS can be added  
to make it look sharp).

Josh


On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Addison Berry wrote:

> I'll start by apologizing for the long email here but I think this
> deserves more than a few sentences. Also note that at the end I've got
> a deadline for responses of Sept. 8. ;-)
>
> So I have a proposal to put out to the team regarding opening up
> editing rights to all authenticated users on d.o. This would be a big
> change and I'd like us to really hammer this out in discussion so that
> we identify and address pitfalls ahead of time as well as possible. I
> have long been a proponent of absolutely *not* opening this up and I
> still have concerns about it, but I'd like to see what the community
> would really do with it. The Drupal community is very different now
> than it was several years ago, whether it is different in a way that
> would make open editing successful this time remains a question.
>
> Before I get to it, a bit of history:
> This has been done in the past and failed. Years ago all auth users
> were allowed to edit the handbook and there was too much vandalism and
> spam to be caught and cleaned up by the community. This is still a
> concern and not one to be taken lightly.
>
> But there are some definite points to be looked at:
> * It requires MUCH less knowledge and time to fix a typo than it does
> to author a new page. Same with rolling in comments, another common
> task that the docs team is stretched a bit thin on.
> * New users are the best poised to ferret out errors in documentation,
> but also the least likely to create new pages.
> * While the barrier to joining the documentation team is low, it is a
> barrier nonetheless, and one that is non-obvious to new users, whose
> input we need the most. I've also found that many new people just
> won't take the step to ask because they feel that it means they have a
> certain time obligation that they don't feel they can "commit" to.
>
> Some issues we will need to look at:
> * We have a mix of input formats out there and anything above Filtered
> HTML needs to be restricted for security reasons. So even if we open
> it up there will definitely be many pages that folks can't edit unless
> they join the team, particularly pages with images. We can explain
> this and make it clear what is going on but there will still be a lot
> of folks that don't read wherever we happen to explain it and will
> complain a lot. So we need to be ready for lots of forum posts/issues/
> irc pings about this unless someone has any other brilliant ideas
> about it. ;-) We should have a standard explanation written up that we
> can point people to and/or copy/paste into emails, etc.
> * We are going to get vandalism, no doubt. So the trick is to see if
> the community can actually self-maintain fairly well and keep up with
> it. The doc team in particular will need to make an extra effort to
> keep an eye on things and be as responsive as possible about reverting
> things and helping clean it up. this is the kicker and if this doesn't
> happen, then this fail. Any and all ideas about ways to help us track
> what is happen and deal with it quickly are welcome. One thing that
> comes to mind is that we do have a Recent updates page (http://drupal.org/handbook/updates
> ) and it would reduce a click if the table included a link directly to
> the revisions tab of the page in question so you could easily review
> the list, see the revision history and get a quick diff on changes.
> This would require a patch to the d.o module so I'll write up a patch
> for that either Sunday or next week.
> * Any other issues we are missing here?
>
> The idea is to try this out as a test. Here is my general plan. Help
> me shore it up:
> Open up general handbook page editing to authenticated users (since
> they can only edit Filtered HTML nodes, the Getting Started Guide and
> other more "official" resources would be off-limits) for a trial
> period of one month. Publicize what the deal is, and then assess the
> number of reversions needed, and decide if we will continue or close
> back up. We can extend the test a month at a time until we are sure of
> our decision and just keep communicating with the community about what
> the progress is. Basically, the community has asked for this and I
> want to see if we can really handle it. If it works, awesome, if it
> doesn't then this will give us some recent experience and data to
> consider when the request is raised again.
>
> So, let's talk about this on the mail list for a week or so and get
> ourselves aligned about whether to agree to the proposal or not and
> also hash out idea for how to actually deal with it. Please respond
> with your thoughts to this list by September 8.
>
> Thanks
> - Addi (add1sun)
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080829/68e5dd53/attachment.bin 

From geoff.butterfield at edutopia.org  Fri Aug 29 18:04:23 2008
From: geoff.butterfield at edutopia.org (Geoff Butterfield)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:04:23 -0700
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <48B80281.6050407@gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<48B80281.6050407@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FA7224B3-5285-47F9-9B50-E4D6FCE05E7A@edutopia.org>

Good points all around. I'd like to mention one thing that might be  
considered, as it certainly affected how I view participating in the  
documentation process.

The issue is part version control and part... well, something else.  
Here's what happened to me. I volunteered to start working on a  
particular page. Without going into a lot of detail, this page was out  
of date and somewhat confusing. I spent the better part of a weekend  
carefully collating all the relevant data and crafting the shortest,  
clearest, paragraphs I could, only to have someone come in a week  
later and replace what I had written by copying and pasting some of  
the older content from one of the pages that were defunct. It wasn't  
just that my copy had been removed, or even edited for better clarity  
or correctness, it was simply replaced by the older copy without  
explanation. I doubt the person who has replaced the copy even  
realized how much time and effort went into making the copy as clear  
and concise as I could make it.

I wasn't mad about it, but it was frustrating. My feeling at this  
point is that I'm unlikely to spend that kind of time working on  
documentation without some kind of oversight. I just don't have the  
time to burn.


Geoff Butterfield | Senior Technology Producer
The George Lucas Educational Foundation
Edutopia.org, Edutopia magazine, and Edutopia Video
p: 415-662-1741




On Aug 29, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Trevor Twining wrote:

> Addi,
>
> I think you're right that it's a good time to bring this up again.
>
> I'm not certain a large number of people will participate. That's not
> necessarily a bad thing, though. Even if we just get *more* people
> participating, then we're improving our reach and that's a success.
>
> In any case, if there's a mechanism to keep an eye on the diffs,  
> even if
> it's just the Recent Updates then I can participate in watching the
> queue as items come in. I'm sitting here at my desk anyway. :) I'm  
> also
> usually in IRC too, and we could use a little activity in there.
>
> The community has grown a lot since the last time this was tried, so I
> think it's a good time to give it another try. If it doesn't work out,
> then maybe at the end we've recruited another couple team members.
> That's not a bad outcome either.
>
> TT
>
> Addison Berry wrote:
>> I'll start by apologizing for the long email here but I think this
>> deserves more than a few sentences. Also note that at the end I've  
>> got
>> a deadline for responses of Sept. 8. ;-)
>>
>> So I have a proposal to put out to the team regarding opening up
>> editing rights to all authenticated users on d.o. This would be a big
>> change and I'd like us to really hammer this out in discussion so  
>> that
>> we identify and address pitfalls ahead of time as well as possible. I
>> have long been a proponent of absolutely *not* opening this up and I
>> still have concerns about it, but I'd like to see what the community
>> would really do with it. The Drupal community is very different now
>> than it was several years ago, whether it is different in a way that
>> would make open editing successful this time remains a question.
>>
>> Before I get to it, a bit of history:
>> This has been done in the past and failed. Years ago all auth users
>> were allowed to edit the handbook and there was too much vandalism  
>> and
>> spam to be caught and cleaned up by the community. This is still a
>> concern and not one to be taken lightly.
>>
>> But there are some definite points to be looked at:
>> * It requires MUCH less knowledge and time to fix a typo than it does
>> to author a new page. Same with rolling in comments, another common
>> task that the docs team is stretched a bit thin on.
>> * New users are the best poised to ferret out errors in  
>> documentation,
>> but also the least likely to create new pages.
>> * While the barrier to joining the documentation team is low, it is a
>> barrier nonetheless, and one that is non-obvious to new users, whose
>> input we need the most. I've also found that many new people just
>> won't take the step to ask because they feel that it means they  
>> have a
>> certain time obligation that they don't feel they can "commit" to.
>>
>> Some issues we will need to look at:
>> * We have a mix of input formats out there and anything above  
>> Filtered
>> HTML needs to be restricted for security reasons. So even if we open
>> it up there will definitely be many pages that folks can't edit  
>> unless
>> they join the team, particularly pages with images. We can explain
>> this and make it clear what is going on but there will still be a lot
>> of folks that don't read wherever we happen to explain it and will
>> complain a lot. So we need to be ready for lots of forum posts/ 
>> issues/
>> irc pings about this unless someone has any other brilliant ideas
>> about it. ;-) We should have a standard explanation written up that  
>> we
>> can point people to and/or copy/paste into emails, etc.
>> * We are going to get vandalism, no doubt. So the trick is to see if
>> the community can actually self-maintain fairly well and keep up with
>> it. The doc team in particular will need to make an extra effort to
>> keep an eye on things and be as responsive as possible about  
>> reverting
>> things and helping clean it up. this is the kicker and if this  
>> doesn't
>> happen, then this fail. Any and all ideas about ways to help us track
>> what is happen and deal with it quickly are welcome. One thing that
>> comes to mind is that we do have a Recent updates page (http://drupal.org/handbook/updates
>> ) and it would reduce a click if the table included a link directly  
>> to
>> the revisions tab of the page in question so you could easily review
>> the list, see the revision history and get a quick diff on changes.
>> This would require a patch to the d.o module so I'll write up a patch
>> for that either Sunday or next week.
>> * Any other issues we are missing here?
>>
>> The idea is to try this out as a test. Here is my general plan. Help
>> me shore it up:
>> Open up general handbook page editing to authenticated users (since
>> they can only edit Filtered HTML nodes, the Getting Started Guide and
>> other more "official" resources would be off-limits) for a trial
>> period of one month. Publicize what the deal is, and then assess the
>> number of reversions needed, and decide if we will continue or close
>> back up. We can extend the test a month at a time until we are sure  
>> of
>> our decision and just keep communicating with the community about  
>> what
>> the progress is. Basically, the community has asked for this and I
>> want to see if we can really handle it. If it works, awesome, if it
>> doesn't then this will give us some recent experience and data to
>> consider when the request is raised again.
>>
>> So, let's talk about this on the mail list for a week or so and get
>> ourselves aligned about whether to agree to the proposal or not and
>> also hash out idea for how to actually deal with it. Please respond
>> with your thoughts to this list by September 8.
>>
>> Thanks
>> - Addi (add1sun)
>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
>
> -- 
> Trevor Twining
> http://www.trevortwining.com
> mail:trevortwining at gmail.com | skype:trevortwining
> http://civicactions.com/team/trevor_twining
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/


From sepeck at gmail.com  Fri Aug 29 18:37:17 2008
From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:37:17 -0700
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <a151b5a00808291137r65691d3et3edbdefc1b054e88@mail.gmail.com>

As I said in IRC, go ahead.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Addison Berry <drupal at rocktreesky.com> wrote:
> I'll start by apologizing for the long email here but I think this
> deserves more than a few sentences. Also note that at the end I've got
> a deadline for responses of Sept. 8. ;-)
>
> So I have a proposal to put out to the team regarding opening up
> editing rights to all authenticated users on d.o. This would be a big
> change and I'd like us to really hammer this out in discussion so that
> we identify and address pitfalls ahead of time as well as possible. I
> have long been a proponent of absolutely *not* opening this up and I
> still have concerns about it, but I'd like to see what the community
> would really do with it. The Drupal community is very different now
> than it was several years ago, whether it is different in a way that
> would make open editing successful this time remains a question.
>
> Before I get to it, a bit of history:
> This has been done in the past and failed. Years ago all auth users
> were allowed to edit the handbook and there was too much vandalism and
> spam to be caught and cleaned up by the community. This is still a
> concern and not one to be taken lightly.
>
> But there are some definite points to be looked at:
> * It requires MUCH less knowledge and time to fix a typo than it does
> to author a new page. Same with rolling in comments, another common
> task that the docs team is stretched a bit thin on.
> * New users are the best poised to ferret out errors in documentation,
> but also the least likely to create new pages.
> * While the barrier to joining the documentation team is low, it is a
> barrier nonetheless, and one that is non-obvious to new users, whose
> input we need the most. I've also found that many new people just
> won't take the step to ask because they feel that it means they have a
> certain time obligation that they don't feel they can "commit" to.
>
> Some issues we will need to look at:
> * We have a mix of input formats out there and anything above Filtered
> HTML needs to be restricted for security reasons. So even if we open
> it up there will definitely be many pages that folks can't edit unless
> they join the team, particularly pages with images. We can explain
> this and make it clear what is going on but there will still be a lot
> of folks that don't read wherever we happen to explain it and will
> complain a lot. So we need to be ready for lots of forum posts/issues/
> irc pings about this unless someone has any other brilliant ideas
> about it. ;-) We should have a standard explanation written up that we
> can point people to and/or copy/paste into emails, etc.
> * We are going to get vandalism, no doubt. So the trick is to see if
> the community can actually self-maintain fairly well and keep up with
> it. The doc team in particular will need to make an extra effort to
> keep an eye on things and be as responsive as possible about reverting
> things and helping clean it up. this is the kicker and if this doesn't
> happen, then this fail. Any and all ideas about ways to help us track
> what is happen and deal with it quickly are welcome. One thing that
> comes to mind is that we do have a Recent updates page (http://drupal.org/handbook/updates
> ) and it would reduce a click if the table included a link directly to
> the revisions tab of the page in question so you could easily review
> the list, see the revision history and get a quick diff on changes.
> This would require a patch to the d.o module so I'll write up a patch
> for that either Sunday or next week.
> * Any other issues we are missing here?
>
> The idea is to try this out as a test. Here is my general plan. Help
> me shore it up:
> Open up general handbook page editing to authenticated users (since
> they can only edit Filtered HTML nodes, the Getting Started Guide and
> other more "official" resources would be off-limits) for a trial
> period of one month. Publicize what the deal is, and then assess the
> number of reversions needed, and decide if we will continue or close
> back up. We can extend the test a month at a time until we are sure of
> our decision and just keep communicating with the community about what
> the progress is. Basically, the community has asked for this and I
> want to see if we can really handle it. If it works, awesome, if it
> doesn't then this will give us some recent experience and data to
> consider when the request is raised again.
>
> So, let's talk about this on the mail list for a week or so and get
> ourselves aligned about whether to agree to the proposal or not and
> also hash out idea for how to actually deal with it. Please respond
> with your thoughts to this list by September 8.
>
> Thanks
> - Addi (add1sun)
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From wolf.zirbs at gmail.com  Fri Aug 29 19:35:02 2008
From: wolf.zirbs at gmail.com (Wolf Zirbs)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:35:02 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Addi,
As a long time Member of D.O. and just a while joined the "Documentation
Team"
I want to give my 2 Cents:

1. Before allow full editing access to Handbooks, Member should get approved
by at list 2 "Senior" member
    of "Documentation Team"

2. The new applying Member for "Documentation Team" should have a (to
establish) period of D.O. membership
    and is not in a black list.

3. Add to "Documentation Team" the possibility to Edit also own posting for
review and or add good Posting
    regarding good tech contribution to the Handbook

Thanks for this Andi.

Cheers

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Addison Berry <drupal at rocktreesky.com>wrote:

> I'll start by apologizing for the long email here but I think this
> deserves more than a few sentences. Also note that at the end I've got
> a deadline for responses of Sept. 8. ;-)
>
> So I have a proposal to put out to the team regarding opening up
> editing rights to all authenticated users on d.o. This would be a big
> change and I'd like us to really hammer this out in discussion so that
> we identify and address pitfalls ahead of time as well as possible. I
> have long been a proponent of absolutely *not* opening this up and I
> still have concerns about it, but I'd like to see what the community
> would really do with it. The Drupal community is very different now
> than it was several years ago, whether it is different in a way that
> would make open editing successful this time remains a question.
>
> Before I get to it, a bit of history:
> This has been done in the past and failed. Years ago all auth users
> were allowed to edit the handbook and there was too much vandalism and
> spam to be caught and cleaned up by the community. This is still a
> concern and not one to be taken lightly.
>
> But there are some definite points to be looked at:
> * It requires MUCH less knowledge and time to fix a typo than it does
> to author a new page. Same with rolling in comments, another common
> task that the docs team is stretched a bit thin on.
> * New users are the best poised to ferret out errors in documentation,
> but also the least likely to create new pages.
> * While the barrier to joining the documentation team is low, it is a
> barrier nonetheless, and one that is non-obvious to new users, whose
> input we need the most. I've also found that many new people just
> won't take the step to ask because they feel that it means they have a
> certain time obligation that they don't feel they can "commit" to.
>
> Some issues we will need to look at:
> * We have a mix of input formats out there and anything above Filtered
> HTML needs to be restricted for security reasons. So even if we open
> it up there will definitely be many pages that folks can't edit unless
> they join the team, particularly pages with images. We can explain
> this and make it clear what is going on but there will still be a lot
> of folks that don't read wherever we happen to explain it and will
> complain a lot. So we need to be ready for lots of forum posts/issues/
> irc pings about this unless someone has any other brilliant ideas
> about it. ;-) We should have a standard explanation written up that we
> can point people to and/or copy/paste into emails, etc.
> * We are going to get vandalism, no doubt. So the trick is to see if
> the community can actually self-maintain fairly well and keep up with
> it. The doc team in particular will need to make an extra effort to
> keep an eye on things and be as responsive as possible about reverting
> things and helping clean it up. this is the kicker and if this doesn't
> happen, then this fail. Any and all ideas about ways to help us track
> what is happen and deal with it quickly are welcome. One thing that
> comes to mind is that we do have a Recent updates page (
> http://drupal.org/handbook/updates
> ) and it would reduce a click if the table included a link directly to
> the revisions tab of the page in question so you could easily review
> the list, see the revision history and get a quick diff on changes.
> This would require a patch to the d.o module so I'll write up a patch
> for that either Sunday or next week.
> * Any other issues we are missing here?
>
> The idea is to try this out as a test. Here is my general plan. Help
> me shore it up:
> Open up general handbook page editing to authenticated users (since
> they can only edit Filtered HTML nodes, the Getting Started Guide and
> other more "official" resources would be off-limits) for a trial
> period of one month. Publicize what the deal is, and then assess the
> number of reversions needed, and decide if we will continue or close
> back up. We can extend the test a month at a time until we are sure of
> our decision and just keep communicating with the community about what
> the progress is. Basically, the community has asked for this and I
> want to see if we can really handle it. If it works, awesome, if it
> doesn't then this will give us some recent experience and data to
> consider when the request is raised again.
>
> So, let's talk about this on the mail list for a week or so and get
> ourselves aligned about whether to agree to the proposal or not and
> also hash out idea for how to actually deal with it. Please respond
> with your thoughts to this list by September 8.
>
> Thanks
> - Addi (add1sun)
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>



-- 
Sincerely Best Regards
Wolf J. Zirbs

P.S.
You may contact me by Mobil - Handy
between 10am and 10pm Vienna Local Time (+43 676 9286735)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080829/70f0fbae/attachment.htm 

From catch56 at googlemail.com  Fri Aug 29 22:02:33 2008
From: catch56 at googlemail.com (Nathaniel Catchpole)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:02:33 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fa5724270808291502i3008e7bfr7fc20ca248e1ea01@mail.gmail.com>

I think this is a good idea and hope it works.

There's a core issue (with working patch) for the disappearing edit
tabs/input formats weirdness here: http://drupal.org/node/91663 would be a
tiny patch to backport. I've seen module maintainers get confused because a
co-maintainer set a project node to full HTML for donate widgets, and they
thought they'd lost permissions to it, so this bug affects everyone.

Nat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080830/aabaafc6/attachment.htm 

From shellmultimedia at gmail.com  Fri Aug 29 22:35:56 2008
From: shellmultimedia at gmail.com (Michelle Cox)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:35:56 -0500
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com> wrote:

> As a long time Member of D.O. and just a while joined the "Documentation
> Team"
> I want to give my 2 Cents:
>
> 1. Before allow full editing access to Handbooks, Member should get
> approved by at list 2 "Senior" member
>     of "Documentation Team"
>
> 2. The new applying Member for "Documentation Team" should have a (to
> establish) period of D.O. membership
>     and is not in a black list.
>
>
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but that sounds like _more_ of a barrier to
edit rights than what we have now, which is basically: "I want to join the
doc team" "welcome aboard".

Michelle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080829/c1aea95c/attachment.htm 

From wolf.zirbs at gmail.com  Fri Aug 29 23:11:00 2008
From: wolf.zirbs at gmail.com (Wolf Zirbs)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:11:00 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>

In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact and easy
documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality and security
on who is going to cooperate.
My proposal for a selection of who have "Fully edit access"  and who not
have does not limit the joining to the documentation team, but give the
"Documentation Team" the chance to build an effective cooperating group.

We all know that there are 100 and more People who are happy to collaborate
and furnish good documentation
but IMHO I see as a priority task also to supply to Drupal.org Handooks a
higher standard of usability of the contained information.

We all know that a basic control is the base of good organizative
management. I care about this even I care to
grant access to every one who want help out in document and report in
Handbook.

Drupal as grown in an impressionable manner functionality and also this give
to anyone more handling power
but we should take care also who is using this powerfull tools and
functions.

Better have Applyer that have a period of practice and then approved to a
more powerfull contribution level as have 1000 that just register ones and
later on do not collaborate actively.

This could also be a grater motivation for every one to get to be part of
this great Community.


;-)

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Michelle Cox <shellmultimedia at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a long time Member of D.O. and just a while joined the "Documentation
>> Team"
>> I want to give my 2 Cents:
>>
>> 1. Before allow full editing access to Handbooks, Member should get
>> approved by at list 2 "Senior" member
>>     of "Documentation Team"
>>
>> 2. The new applying Member for "Documentation Team" should have a (to
>> establish) period of D.O. membership
>>     and is not in a black list.
>>
>>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but that sounds like _more_ of a barrier
> to edit rights than what we have now, which is basically: "I want to join
> the doc team" "welcome aboard".
>
> Michelle
>
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>



-- 
Sincerely Best Regards
Wolf J. Zirbs

P.S.
You may contact me by Mobil - Handy
between 10am and 10pm Vienna Local Time (+43 676 9286735)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080830/62c327ee/attachment-0001.htm 

From cathy.theys at YesTrainingAndEducation.com  Sat Aug 30 02:53:32 2008
From: cathy.theys at YesTrainingAndEducation.com (Cathy Theys (Yes! Training and Education))
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:53:32 -0500
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>

1) what if *anyone* could submit a revision
2) (with a simple, simple cvs like change log/note
3) [provide example/check box like: fixed typo, corrected information,
clarified wording, major update]),
4) but it had to be approved... by a member of the doc group.
5) and *anyone* could join the doc group (like it is now, request -> welcome!)
-Cathy

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact and easy
> documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality and security
> on who is going to cooperate.

From victorkane at gmail.com  Sat Aug 30 08:18:12 2008
From: victorkane at gmail.com (Victor Kane)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:18:12 -0300
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
	<f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>

I hear what Michelle is saying...

This calls for an industry standard. I think there are traditional
tools for crowdsourcing documentation, which is a great idea.

It's called a wiki.

On the other hand, the existing documentation as docs can still stand,
which can be either open / closed according to the discussion of those
most active (meritocracy rights).

On the other... a Drupal Wiki section!

Then the result can be voted by people's legs (i.e. concrete results)
and not our abstract speculation here.

Maybe the wiki will be a disaster... most aren't :)

Victor Kane
http://awebfactory.com.ar

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Cathy Theys (Yes! Training and
Education) <cathy.theys at yestrainingandeducation.com> wrote:
> 1) what if *anyone* could submit a revision
> 2) (with a simple, simple cvs like change log/note
> 3) [provide example/check box like: fixed typo, corrected information,
> clarified wording, major update]),
> 4) but it had to be approved... by a member of the doc group.
> 5) and *anyone* could join the doc group (like it is now, request -> welcome!)
> -Cathy
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact and easy
>> documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality and security
>> on who is going to cooperate.
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sat Aug 30 10:43:02 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:43:02 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
	<f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com>

Uh, well opening up edit rights is pretty much the wiki concept.  
Everyone can already create new pages right now. This proposal is to  
let them edit it too. Beyond that, I hate the idea of wiki formats and  
don't think that will be a big boost and most likely leads to more  
confusion. I also think that the freelinking aspect that is often  
associated with a wiki is bad for structured information. The  
semantics or the terminology used doesn't matter, it's the use of the  
thing. So what exactly do you mean by wiki that isn't what we are  
proposing already?

Addi (add1sun)

On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Victor Kane wrote:

> I hear what Michelle is saying...
>
> This calls for an industry standard. I think there are traditional
> tools for crowdsourcing documentation, which is a great idea.
>
> It's called a wiki.
>
> On the other hand, the existing documentation as docs can still stand,
> which can be either open / closed according to the discussion of those
> most active (meritocracy rights).
>
> On the other... a Drupal Wiki section!
>
> Then the result can be voted by people's legs (i.e. concrete results)
> and not our abstract speculation here.
>
> Maybe the wiki will be a disaster... most aren't :)
>
> Victor Kane
> http://awebfactory.com.ar
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Cathy Theys (Yes! Training and
> Education) <cathy.theys at yestrainingandeducation.com> wrote:
>> 1) what if *anyone* could submit a revision
>> 2) (with a simple, simple cvs like change log/note
>> 3) [provide example/check box like: fixed typo, corrected  
>> information,
>> clarified wording, major update]),
>> 4) but it had to be approved... by a member of the doc group.
>> 5) and *anyone* could join the doc group (like it is now, request - 
>> > welcome!)
>> -Cathy
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact  
>>> and easy
>>> documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality  
>>> and security
>>> on who is going to cooperate.
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/


From victorkane at gmail.com  Sat Aug 30 11:06:28 2008
From: victorkane at gmail.com (Victor Kane)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:06:28 -0300
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
	<f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>
	<E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <ff176450808300406m39288cifdd426d2daab0bd3@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I think personally that the freelinking aspect could be a big
boost, although it is not necessary to include it.

My main concept about wiki and crowdsourcing is that you can maintain
a "wiki" area where a given set of authorized users (could be any
registered user) can create and edit and link, and that the actual
usefulness is something that can be proven in time. You don't have to
draw up any complicated set of rules and procedures. The value comes
from the crowd actually doing it.

At the same time the more classic "Getting started" and generally
acknowledged high quality stuff like the theming overview can be set
apart in a more controlled area.

Just my two cents. Keep up the great work, documentation team!

Victor Kane

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Addison Berry <drupal at rocktreesky.com> wrote:
> Uh, well opening up edit rights is pretty much the wiki concept.
> Everyone can already create new pages right now. This proposal is to
> let them edit it too. Beyond that, I hate the idea of wiki formats and
> don't think that will be a big boost and most likely leads to more
> confusion. I also think that the freelinking aspect that is often
> associated with a wiki is bad for structured information. The
> semantics or the terminology used doesn't matter, it's the use of the
> thing. So what exactly do you mean by wiki that isn't what we are
> proposing already?
>
> Addi (add1sun)
>
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Victor Kane wrote:
>
>> I hear what Michelle is saying...
>>
>> This calls for an industry standard. I think there are traditional
>> tools for crowdsourcing documentation, which is a great idea.
>>
>> It's called a wiki.
>>
>> On the other hand, the existing documentation as docs can still stand,
>> which can be either open / closed according to the discussion of those
>> most active (meritocracy rights).
>>
>> On the other... a Drupal Wiki section!
>>
>> Then the result can be voted by people's legs (i.e. concrete results)
>> and not our abstract speculation here.
>>
>> Maybe the wiki will be a disaster... most aren't :)
>>
>> Victor Kane
>> http://awebfactory.com.ar
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Cathy Theys (Yes! Training and
>> Education) <cathy.theys at yestrainingandeducation.com> wrote:
>>> 1) what if *anyone* could submit a revision
>>> 2) (with a simple, simple cvs like change log/note
>>> 3) [provide example/check box like: fixed typo, corrected
>>> information,
>>> clarified wording, major update]),
>>> 4) but it had to be approved... by a member of the doc group.
>>> 5) and *anyone* could join the doc group (like it is now, request -
>>> > welcome!)
>>> -Cathy
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact
>>>> and easy
>>>> documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality
>>>> and security
>>>> on who is going to cooperate.
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From drupal at rocktreesky.com  Sat Aug 30 12:44:05 2008
From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:44:05 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <ff176450808300406m39288cifdd426d2daab0bd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
	<f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>
	<E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com>
	<ff176450808300406m39288cifdd426d2daab0bd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29DAA358-FD13-4CBF-9610-557A4D43E0C6@rocktreesky.com>

We can agree to disagree on the freelinking. :-) As for the Getting  
started guide, that will be restricted already in the current  
proposal. The theme handbook could be too, but probably not wholesale.  
Keep in mind that any page with images will not be editable by regular  
users. So, that said, it sounds like what you want is what the current  
proposal would achieve.

- Addi (add1sun)

On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Victor Kane wrote:

> Well, I think personally that the freelinking aspect could be a big
> boost, although it is not necessary to include it.
>
> My main concept about wiki and crowdsourcing is that you can maintain
> a "wiki" area where a given set of authorized users (could be any
> registered user) can create and edit and link, and that the actual
> usefulness is something that can be proven in time. You don't have to
> draw up any complicated set of rules and procedures. The value comes
> from the crowd actually doing it.
>
> At the same time the more classic "Getting started" and generally
> acknowledged high quality stuff like the theming overview can be set
> apart in a more controlled area.
>
> Just my two cents. Keep up the great work, documentation team!
>
> Victor Kane
>
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Addison Berry  
> <drupal at rocktreesky.com> wrote:
>> Uh, well opening up edit rights is pretty much the wiki concept.
>> Everyone can already create new pages right now. This proposal is to
>> let them edit it too. Beyond that, I hate the idea of wiki formats  
>> and
>> don't think that will be a big boost and most likely leads to more
>> confusion. I also think that the freelinking aspect that is often
>> associated with a wiki is bad for structured information. The
>> semantics or the terminology used doesn't matter, it's the use of the
>> thing. So what exactly do you mean by wiki that isn't what we are
>> proposing already?
>>
>> Addi (add1sun)
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Victor Kane wrote:
>>
>>> I hear what Michelle is saying...
>>>
>>> This calls for an industry standard. I think there are traditional
>>> tools for crowdsourcing documentation, which is a great idea.
>>>
>>> It's called a wiki.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the existing documentation as docs can still  
>>> stand,
>>> which can be either open / closed according to the discussion of  
>>> those
>>> most active (meritocracy rights).
>>>
>>> On the other... a Drupal Wiki section!
>>>
>>> Then the result can be voted by people's legs (i.e. concrete  
>>> results)
>>> and not our abstract speculation here.
>>>
>>> Maybe the wiki will be a disaster... most aren't :)
>>>
>>> Victor Kane
>>> http://awebfactory.com.ar
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Cathy Theys (Yes! Training and
>>> Education) <cathy.theys at yestrainingandeducation.com> wrote:
>>>> 1) what if *anyone* could submit a revision
>>>> 2) (with a simple, simple cvs like change log/note
>>>> 3) [provide example/check box like: fixed typo, corrected
>>>> information,
>>>> clarified wording, major update]),
>>>> 4) but it had to be approved... by a member of the doc group.
>>>> 5) and *anyone* could join the doc group (like it is now, request -
>>>>> welcome!)
>>>> -Cathy
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact
>>>>> and easy
>>>>> documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality
>>>>> and security
>>>>> on who is going to cooperate.
>>>> --
>>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/


From victorkane at gmail.com  Sat Aug 30 12:55:43 2008
From: victorkane at gmail.com (Victor Kane)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:55:43 -0300
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <29DAA358-FD13-4CBF-9610-557A4D43E0C6@rocktreesky.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
	<f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>
	<E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com>
	<ff176450808300406m39288cifdd426d2daab0bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<29DAA358-FD13-4CBF-9610-557A4D43E0C6@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <ff176450808300555m28fcbacdi555fc89dd3f40c0d@mail.gmail.com>

Right, and I guess now that I've added my two cents, I had better
participate too! :)

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Addison Berry <drupal at rocktreesky.com> wrote:
> We can agree to disagree on the freelinking. :-) As for the Getting
> started guide, that will be restricted already in the current
> proposal. The theme handbook could be too, but probably not wholesale.
> Keep in mind that any page with images will not be editable by regular
> users. So, that said, it sounds like what you want is what the current
> proposal would achieve.
>
> - Addi (add1sun)
>
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Victor Kane wrote:
>
>> Well, I think personally that the freelinking aspect could be a big
>> boost, although it is not necessary to include it.
>>
>> My main concept about wiki and crowdsourcing is that you can maintain
>> a "wiki" area where a given set of authorized users (could be any
>> registered user) can create and edit and link, and that the actual
>> usefulness is something that can be proven in time. You don't have to
>> draw up any complicated set of rules and procedures. The value comes
>> from the crowd actually doing it.
>>
>> At the same time the more classic "Getting started" and generally
>> acknowledged high quality stuff like the theming overview can be set
>> apart in a more controlled area.
>>
>> Just my two cents. Keep up the great work, documentation team!
>>
>> Victor Kane
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Addison Berry
>> <drupal at rocktreesky.com> wrote:
>>> Uh, well opening up edit rights is pretty much the wiki concept.
>>> Everyone can already create new pages right now. This proposal is to
>>> let them edit it too. Beyond that, I hate the idea of wiki formats
>>> and
>>> don't think that will be a big boost and most likely leads to more
>>> confusion. I also think that the freelinking aspect that is often
>>> associated with a wiki is bad for structured information. The
>>> semantics or the terminology used doesn't matter, it's the use of the
>>> thing. So what exactly do you mean by wiki that isn't what we are
>>> proposing already?
>>>
>>> Addi (add1sun)
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Victor Kane wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hear what Michelle is saying...
>>>>
>>>> This calls for an industry standard. I think there are traditional
>>>> tools for crowdsourcing documentation, which is a great idea.
>>>>
>>>> It's called a wiki.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the existing documentation as docs can still
>>>> stand,
>>>> which can be either open / closed according to the discussion of
>>>> those
>>>> most active (meritocracy rights).
>>>>
>>>> On the other... a Drupal Wiki section!
>>>>
>>>> Then the result can be voted by people's legs (i.e. concrete
>>>> results)
>>>> and not our abstract speculation here.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the wiki will be a disaster... most aren't :)
>>>>
>>>> Victor Kane
>>>> http://awebfactory.com.ar
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Cathy Theys (Yes! Training and
>>>> Education) <cathy.theys at yestrainingandeducation.com> wrote:
>>>>> 1) what if *anyone* could submit a revision
>>>>> 2) (with a simple, simple cvs like change log/note
>>>>> 3) [provide example/check box like: fixed typo, corrected
>>>>> information,
>>>>> clarified wording, major update]),
>>>>> 4) but it had to be approved... by a member of the doc group.
>>>>> 5) and *anyone* could join the doc group (like it is now, request -
>>>>>> welcome!)
>>>>> -Cathy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact
>>>>>> and easy
>>>>>> documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality
>>>>>> and security
>>>>>> on who is going to cooperate.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>

From mgparisi at rochester.rr.com  Sat Aug 30 16:03:27 2008
From: mgparisi at rochester.rr.com (Mike Parisi)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:03:27 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com><ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com><8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com><ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com><f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com><ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com><E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com><ff176450808300406m39288cifdd426d2daab0bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<29DAA358-FD13-4CBF-9610-557A4D43E0C6@rocktreesky.com>
Message-ID: <E9F0E7603F274D0F842A800F6F37BC51@Monster>

I am sitting here looking at my PDD, the API doc, and Google like mad trying 
to find examples on how to use the hook_form_alter().  One thing that WORKS 
and that I have purposed in the past is the PHP.org type system where there 
are comments to the API.

The problem with this PHP.org is that some comments are incorrect and have 
to be corrected, no one has permissions to do this so the comments become 
replies after replies after replies.  Maybe we should just give everyone 
permission to write and edit comments to the documentation.  Even give them 
the ability to edit other peoples comments.  I know there is some 
restriction to the API that prevents this so maybe we should just link each 
API and Document to an open WIKI page.

Mike

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Addison Berry" <drupal at rocktreesky.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:44 AM
To: "A list for documentation writers" <documentation at drupal.org>
Subject: Re: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights

> We can agree to disagree on the freelinking. :-) As for the Getting
> started guide, that will be restricted already in the current
> proposal. The theme handbook could be too, but probably not wholesale.
> Keep in mind that any page with images will not be editable by regular
> users. So, that said, it sounds like what you want is what the current
> proposal would achieve.
>
> - Addi (add1sun)
>
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Victor Kane wrote:
>
>> Well, I think personally that the freelinking aspect could be a big
>> boost, although it is not necessary to include it.
>>
>> My main concept about wiki and crowdsourcing is that you can maintain
>> a "wiki" area where a given set of authorized users (could be any
>> registered user) can create and edit and link, and that the actual
>> usefulness is something that can be proven in time. You don't have to
>> draw up any complicated set of rules and procedures. The value comes
>> from the crowd actually doing it.
>>
>> At the same time the more classic "Getting started" and generally
>> acknowledged high quality stuff like the theming overview can be set
>> apart in a more controlled area.
>>
>> Just my two cents. Keep up the great work, documentation team!
>>
>> Victor Kane
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Addison Berry
>> <drupal at rocktreesky.com> wrote:
>>> Uh, well opening up edit rights is pretty much the wiki concept.
>>> Everyone can already create new pages right now. This proposal is to
>>> let them edit it too. Beyond that, I hate the idea of wiki formats
>>> and
>>> don't think that will be a big boost and most likely leads to more
>>> confusion. I also think that the freelinking aspect that is often
>>> associated with a wiki is bad for structured information. The
>>> semantics or the terminology used doesn't matter, it's the use of the
>>> thing. So what exactly do you mean by wiki that isn't what we are
>>> proposing already?
>>>
>>> Addi (add1sun)
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Victor Kane wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hear what Michelle is saying...
>>>>
>>>> This calls for an industry standard. I think there are traditional
>>>> tools for crowdsourcing documentation, which is a great idea.
>>>>
>>>> It's called a wiki.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the existing documentation as docs can still
>>>> stand,
>>>> which can be either open / closed according to the discussion of
>>>> those
>>>> most active (meritocracy rights).
>>>>
>>>> On the other... a Drupal Wiki section!
>>>>
>>>> Then the result can be voted by people's legs (i.e. concrete
>>>> results)
>>>> and not our abstract speculation here.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the wiki will be a disaster... most aren't :)
>>>>
>>>> Victor Kane
>>>> http://awebfactory.com.ar
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Cathy Theys (Yes! Training and
>>>> Education) <cathy.theys at yestrainingandeducation.com> wrote:
>>>>> 1) what if *anyone* could submit a revision
>>>>> 2) (with a simple, simple cvs like change log/note
>>>>> 3) [provide example/check box like: fixed typo, corrected
>>>>> information,
>>>>> clarified wording, major update]),
>>>>> 4) but it had to be approved... by a member of the doc group.
>>>>> 5) and *anyone* could join the doc group (like it is now, request -
>>>>>> welcome!)
>>>>> -Cathy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Wolf Zirbs <wolf.zirbs at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In consideration that we all have responsability to provide exact
>>>>>> and easy
>>>>>> documentation it should also take care of a standard of quality
>>>>>> and security
>>>>>> on who is going to cooperate.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ 


From lee.hunter at hum.com  Sat Aug 30 17:33:25 2008
From: lee.hunter at hum.com (Lee Hunter)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:33:25 -0400
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <E9F0E7603F274D0F842A800F6F37BC51@Monster>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<ad6044090808291235h3bd6db77me6e3ce6534669e06@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
	<f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>
	<E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com>
	<ff176450808300406m39288cifdd426d2daab0bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<29DAA358-FD13-4CBF-9610-557A4D43E0C6@rocktreesky.com>
	<E9F0E7603F274D0F842A800F6F37BC51@Monster>
Message-ID: <197f52f50808301033t6116424am90dad2e41d1e76c2@mail.gmail.com>

There are two features of Wikipedia that I sorely miss in the Drupal docs.

One is the existence of a "Talk" page on a separate tab with each
article. This is one of the best ways I've seen to gather comments and
suggestions. With only the "comments" feature enabled (the status
quo), you wind up with just a linear and sequential view of everything
everyone ever said about the article. With the Wikipedia style Talk
page, anyone could refactor and archive old conversations and you
could put more important stuff (like a "to do" list for the article)
at the top and important contributions to the dialog could be
highlighted and flagged.

The other thing I sorely miss from Wikipedia, is the ability to add
ad-hoc categories and sub-categories. The current information
architecture of the Drupal documentation (especially outside the
developer docs) is - and I'm struggling to be diplomatic here -  just
horrible horrible horrible horrible. And it seems that gaining
consensus for major structural fixes is difficult in this kind of open
source environment. However, if we could use categories like they do
in Wikipedia (it's actually a kind of hierarchical free tagging)  you
wouldn't necessarily have to change the current information
architecture at all. The ability to apply multiple tags and to
organize them in a variety of hierarchies would provide incredibly
useful ways to navigate the information and it would allow people to
organically associate related content. The worst thing about the
current Drupal docs is the amount of related content that has been
split into meaningless silos. For example, if I'm trying to find
information about managing users, do I look in HowTos, Tutorials,
Snippets, Understanding Drupal, Videos and Slides, Getting Started,
Contributed Modules, Troubleshooting FAQ or all of the above? The
answer, of course, is "all of the above and a whole lot more".  But if
we had some kind of tagging system, I'd only need to find one
administering user article and I'd be able to very easily see all the
rest just by clicking the "managing users" tag. It wouldn't matter
whether it was a contributed module, snippet, video, tutorial, how to,
troubleshooting and that's great because when I'm looking for
something I totally do not care in the least whether somebody else
considers it a howto, module, tutorial or tomato. As long as it
relates to my problem, that's what I want to see!

Lee Hunter
Technical Editor

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mike Parisi <mgparisi at rochester.rr.com> wrote:

> The problem with this PHP.org is that some comments are incorrect and have
> to be corrected, no one has permissions to do this so the comments become
> replies after replies after replies.  Maybe we should just give everyone
> permission to write and edit comments to the documentation.  Even give them
> the ability to edit other peoples comments.  I know there is some
> restriction to the API that prevents this so maybe we should just link each
> API and Document to an open WIKI page.

From changetheworld at ronaldmulero.com  Sat Aug 30 17:42:51 2008
From: changetheworld at ronaldmulero.com (changetheworld at ronaldmulero.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:42:51 -0500
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
Message-ID: <S367913AbYH3Rmv/20080830174251Z+810@ams10.chi.affinity.com>

How about assigning each doc team member a manageable number of random 
handbook pages to "adopt for life" and monitor for spam/vandalism. They 
wouldn't have to keep their adopted pages up-to-date or accurate, mind you, 
they would just allow d.o. to automatically notify them any time one of 
their adopted pages was edited, so that they could make sure the edits were 
free of spam/vandalism. Karma would be awarded to doc team members with 
consistently spam-free/vandalism-free pages. 

Then, handbook editing could be opened up to any authentiated user. 

Ron 

Addison Berry wrote:
> ...
> The doc team in particular will need to make an extra effort to  
> keep an eye on things and be as responsive as possible about reverting  
> things and helping clean it up. this is the kicker and if this doesn't  
> happen, then this fail. 
> ...
 


From wolf.zirbs at gmail.com  Sun Aug 31 01:21:52 2008
From: wolf.zirbs at gmail.com (Wolf Zirbs)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:21:52 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Proposal to open up editing rights
In-Reply-To: <197f52f50808301033t6116424am90dad2e41d1e76c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E772C38A-3B83-43AE-BABA-D3406451507B@rocktreesky.com>
	<8ccde8ac0808291535q46147c3fr90585ce79a459c14@mail.gmail.com>
	<ad6044090808291611n7453e632h29f3a99743221911@mail.gmail.com>
	<f10ebef00808291953i3b9df108o878298da688d296a@mail.gmail.com>
	<ff176450808300118m29f59052ta7fcb91c7d1512df@mail.gmail.com>
	<E618CCF3-333A-4C56-8382-4BCDBC3BBB3F@rocktreesky.com>
	<ff176450808300406m39288cifdd426d2daab0bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<29DAA358-FD13-4CBF-9610-557A4D43E0C6@rocktreesky.com>
	<E9F0E7603F274D0F842A800F6F37BC51@Monster>
	<197f52f50808301033t6116424am90dad2e41d1e76c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad6044090808301821y2ec7c582gd5e25b9932157de4@mail.gmail.com>

--->  One big plus + to Talk system. IMHO is a very good base to start
over.Thanks
for the very reachfull feedback.
@wolfflow



On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Lee Hunter <lee.hunter at hum.com> wrote:

> There are two features of Wikipedia that I sorely miss in the Drupal docs.
>
> One is the existence of a "Talk" page on a separate tab with each
> article. This is one of the best ways I've seen to gather comments and
> suggestions. With only the "comments" feature enabled (the status
> quo), you wind up with just a linear and sequential view of everything
> everyone ever said about the article. With the Wikipedia style Talk
> page, anyone could refactor and archive old conversations and you
> could put more important stuff (like a "to do" list for the article)
> at the top and important contributions to the dialog could be
> highlighted and flagged.
>
> The other thing I sorely miss from Wikipedia, is the ability to add
> ad-hoc categories and sub-categories. The current information
> architecture of the Drupal documentation (especially outside the
> developer docs) is - and I'm struggling to be diplomatic here -  just
> horrible horrible horrible horrible. And it seems that gaining
> consensus for major structural fixes is difficult in this kind of open
> source environment. However, if we could use categories like they do
> in Wikipedia (it's actually a kind of hierarchical free tagging)  you
> wouldn't necessarily have to change the current information
> architecture at all. The ability to apply multiple tags and to
> organize them in a variety of hierarchies would provide incredibly
> useful ways to navigate the information and it would allow people to
> organically associate related content. The worst thing about the
> current Drupal docs is the amount of related content that has been
> split into meaningless silos. For example, if I'm trying to find
> information about managing users, do I look in HowTos, Tutorials,
> Snippets, Understanding Drupal, Videos and Slides, Getting Started,
> Contributed Modules, Troubleshooting FAQ or all of the above? The
> answer, of course, is "all of the above and a whole lot more".  But if
> we had some kind of tagging system, I'd only need to find one
> administering user article and I'd be able to very easily see all the
> rest just by clicking the "managing users" tag. It wouldn't matter
> whether it was a contributed module, snippet, video, tutorial, how to,
> troubleshooting and that's great because when I'm looking for
> something I totally do not care in the least whether somebody else
> considers it a howto, module, tutorial or tomato. As long as it
> relates to my problem, that's what I want to see!
>
> Lee Hunter
> Technical Editor
>
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mike Parisi <mgparisi at rochester.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problem with this PHP.org is that some comments are incorrect and
> have
> > to be corrected, no one has permissions to do this so the comments become
> > replies after replies after replies.  Maybe we should just give everyone
> > permission to write and edit comments to the documentation.  Even give
> them
> > the ability to edit other peoples comments.  I know there is some
> > restriction to the API that prevents this so maybe we should just link
> each
> > API and Document to an open WIKI page.
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>



-- 
Sincerely Best Regards
Wolf J. Zirbs

P.S.
You may contact me by Mobil - Handy
between 10am and 10pm Vienna Local Time (+43 676 9286735)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080831/1e393f37/attachment.htm 

From jz.sanmartin at gmail.com  Sun Aug 31 11:32:40 2008
From: jz.sanmartin at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_San_Martin?=)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:32:40 +0200
Subject: [documentation] Feature requests and ideas
Message-ID: <75e08cee0808310432j2c3c8cdds33fe718b343dce5c@mail.gmail.com>

Cleaning up the issue queue.
I've found this issue - http://drupal.org/node/133988 - with some
ideas and I really don't think issue queue is a nice place for
brainstorming. So, I'm closing the issue and opening a discussion
thread here. Note that these are NOT my opinions, it's just a follow
up.

ze sanmartin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

integrate documentation into contrib projects
by JohnG (http://drupal.org/user/19957)

I just dropped into this issues queue from the Quicklink block ->
suggest documentation improvements ... so I'm not really sure where I
am ;) perhaps a breadcrumb or link to the documentation project
homepage ... ? So apologies if this is the wrong place for airing
these ideas ... pointers welcome.

I'm prompted by my constant use of the 'My Issues' link in the
Contributor Links block, and the lack of a similar link to 'My
Handbook posts' (etc). To check if there are any updates to my
handbook pages, I have to use the User/.../Tracker (buried in the
Navigation block under -> Recent posts -> My Recent Posts), which is
slow and cluttered with forum threads that I wish I had never got
involved with ;) My train of thought gave rise to the following (quite
radical) suggestion, which is by no means the only solution to the
problem! It promotes the 'context = project' framework of Drupal.org,
which IMO works well because you tend to get usergroups accumulating
around particular Projects. In a nutshell, I'm suggestion integrating
the relevant parts of the Handbook more closely into the Project
framework.

   1. Embedded vs Online documentation: Several modules now just use a
link to the appropriate Drupal.org Handbook_page instead of embedding
static help text into the module download, whilst others provide no
online documentation at all. (It would seem like an easy task for
developers to C&P their embedded docs into a handbook page ... but
this rarely happens).
      If the help docs are maintained primarily online (Drupal.org) :
      a) it removes the burden of maintaining help info in downloadable files,
      b) it means prospective users don't need to install the module
to find out all about it ;)

# Localise docs to project homepage: If the docs for contrib modules
were (by node structure) 'children' of the Project_node 'homepage'
(rather than an optional link to the optional Handbook_page ;)
a) documentation might be regarded as a more integral part of project
development and maintenance,
b) online docs can encourage module users to also keep an eye on the
issues queue for updates, bugfixes, etc. (cf release monitor and
update status modules),
c) unresearched issues are less likely if the docs are handy.
# Use issue queue for docs maintenance: Rather than comments being
attached to the Docs, documentation issues could be reported via the
project issues queue, along with other maintenance and development
issues.
a) This way they would get more attention from the people who
maintain, develop and use the module. (I don't know how this extra
traffic would impact on project-emaillist-subscribers ?).
b) Issue queues are more maintainable than comment threads.
c) Issue_nodes already have useful tags for Documention -> bug
reports, support requests, and feature requests. All are appropriate
to Documentation issues, and IMO many Support Requests are really
about Documentation ...
d) Where issues are concerned with relationships or integration
between modules (eg views integration) it might be useful to be able
to submit the same issue to more than one project queue ... though I
can see how this flexibility could descend into chaos.

This system would work even better if core modules were each given
their own Project_node ... ;)

Just passing on my thoughts really - I hope they may be of use.