From shai at content2zero.com Fri May 16 20:05:47 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:05:47 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Inviting People to Review Important Documentation Patch Message-ID: <9f68efb70805161305k5c778d1ame3b3c4c0b31e7de2@mail.gmail.com> Hi Gang, I've opened an issue and posted a patch to the README.txt file for the Google Analytics module . What's the best protocol for getting people to read it? I thought this list might be a good place. I'll check out if there is a Google Analytics group on gdo. The upgrade from 1.3 to 1.4 totally inverted the logic regarding when the module includes the tracking scripts on a page. (It went from checking a check box for a role means exclude-from-tracking to checking check box means include-in-tracking.) There is currently no mention of this in the readme file. (I lost more than a months worth of tracking data after I installed the update on three sites, because I only figured this out a month after I installed the upgrade.) I sort of assumed the maintainer would just commit it, or commit it with edits since it seems so obviously needed. But he marked it, "Patch, code needs review." So I'm trying to get folks to review it. Thanks for your help, Shai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080516/6c7eb7d5/attachment.htm From drupal at rocktreesky.com Sat May 17 00:45:15 2008 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:45:15 -0400 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting Message-ID: Hey folks, things seem to have totally stalled on getting the "contributions" thingy reorg for the docs going. I have been traveling a *lot* lately but I will be home for a few weeks here. I'd like to propose we have another IRC meeting for anyone interested in the "Contrib Redesign" tickets so we can put this back on radar and actually get it done. I'd also like to discuss having a "Docs sprint" day sometime soon where we can have an all day "on-line documentation work/issue queue cleanup/help newbie documenters" day. Are folks available to meet in the #drupal-docs IRC channel on either the weekend of May 24/25 or May 31/June1? This will be specifically about the Contrib Redesign and we can set a docs sprint day during that meeting. Both weekends will work for me as long as I can block the time out in advance. Please respond to the list with your preferred date/time and the majority rule will win . :-) - Addi (aka add1sun) From pteglia at gmail.com Sat May 17 02:34:41 2008 From: pteglia at gmail.com (Patrick Teglia) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:34:41 -0600 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, A newbie chimes in! Glad to be a part, and I am really looking forward to the "help newbie documenters" day. May 24/25th would be best for me, anytime after 8am MST (I'm easy :) ) Thanks, Pat - CrashTest_ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080516/42e04167/attachment.htm From mike at michaelfbooth.com Sat May 17 03:07:46 2008 From: mike at michaelfbooth.com (Michael Booth) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 23:07:46 -0400 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81A2F4D7-14C7-4A57-AFE8-6F1792CBBB2F@michaelfbooth.com> Yeah, totally stalled, indeed. My lame excuse is that my wife and I have been moving. :) May 24/25 I can do; the next weekend, I can't. So let me voice a big preference for the 24/25... mechfish On May 16, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > Hey folks, things seem to have totally stalled on getting the > "contributions" thingy reorg for the docs going. I have been traveling > a *lot* lately but I will be home for a few weeks here. I'd like to > propose we have another IRC meeting for anyone interested in the > "Contrib Redesign" tickets so we can put this back on radar and > actually get it done. > > I'd also like to discuss having a "Docs sprint" day sometime soon > where we can have an all day "on-line documentation work/issue queue > cleanup/help newbie documenters" day. > > Are folks available to meet in the #drupal-docs IRC channel on either > the weekend of May 24/25 or May 31/June1? This will be specifically > about the Contrib Redesign and we can set a docs sprint day during > that meeting. Both weekends will work for me as long as I can block > the time out in advance. Please respond to the list with your > preferred date/time and the majority rule will win . :-) > > - Addi (aka add1sun) > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ From geoff.butterfield at edutopia.org Sat May 17 03:36:58 2008 From: geoff.butterfield at edutopia.org (Geoff Butterfield) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:36:58 -0700 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6B96BED3-B106-4736-B1AE-DD447F28C2C0@edutopia.org> I can make May 24/25 Geoff Butterfield | Senior Technology Producer The George Lucas Educational Foundation Edutopia.org, Edutopia magazine, and Edutopia Video On May 16, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > Hey folks, things seem to have totally stalled on getting the > "contributions" thingy reorg for the docs going. I have been traveling > a *lot* lately but I will be home for a few weeks here. I'd like to > propose we have another IRC meeting for anyone interested in the > "Contrib Redesign" tickets so we can put this back on radar and > actually get it done. > > I'd also like to discuss having a "Docs sprint" day sometime soon > where we can have an all day "on-line documentation work/issue queue > cleanup/help newbie documenters" day. > > Are folks available to meet in the #drupal-docs IRC channel on either > the weekend of May 24/25 or May 31/June1? This will be specifically > about the Contrib Redesign and we can set a docs sprint day during > that meeting. Both weekends will work for me as long as I can block > the time out in advance. Please respond to the list with your > preferred date/time and the majority rule will win . :-) > > - Addi (aka add1sun) > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ From joshua at brauerranch.com Sat May 17 04:26:53 2008 From: joshua at brauerranch.com (Joshua Brauer) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:26:53 -0600 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E2C3292-AF63-4D6D-A4A9-6EEA49912B4C@brauerranch.com> Either would work but I'm in favor of the 24/25 in order to get things going sooner. However that is also the Memorial Day weekend in the US for anybody who has a work schedule such that such things are affected... Ah I remember those days.... Josh --------------------------- Joshua Brauer Brauer Ranch Ltd. Co. http://BrauerRanch.com Making life better by making Drupal easy. On May 16, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > Hey folks, things seem to have totally stalled on getting the > "contributions" thingy reorg for the docs going. I have been traveling > a *lot* lately but I will be home for a few weeks here. I'd like to > propose we have another IRC meeting for anyone interested in the > "Contrib Redesign" tickets so we can put this back on radar and > actually get it done. > > I'd also like to discuss having a "Docs sprint" day sometime soon > where we can have an all day "on-line documentation work/issue queue > cleanup/help newbie documenters" day. > > Are folks available to meet in the #drupal-docs IRC channel on either > the weekend of May 24/25 or May 31/June1? This will be specifically > about the Contrib Redesign and we can set a docs sprint day during > that meeting. Both weekends will work for me as long as I can block > the time out in advance. Please respond to the list with your > preferred date/time and the majority rule will win . :-) > > - Addi (aka 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: 2427 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080516/82c6216a/attachment-0001.bin From esmerel at logrus.com Sat May 17 05:18:25 2008 From: esmerel at logrus.com (Lynette) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:18:25 -0700 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: <1E2C3292-AF63-4D6D-A4A9-6EEA49912B4C@brauerranch.com> References: <1E2C3292-AF63-4D6D-A4A9-6EEA49912B4C@brauerranch.com> Message-ID: <482E6AA1.7080003@logrus.com> I'm in favor of the 24/25 also. The 1st is my birthday and I plan to be UTTER SLACKFUL :D - lynette From jacob.roufa at gmail.com Sun May 18 00:09:35 2008 From: jacob.roufa at gmail.com (Jacob Roufa) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 19:09:35 -0500 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: <482E6AA1.7080003@logrus.com> References: <1E2C3292-AF63-4D6D-A4A9-6EEA49912B4C@brauerranch.com> <482E6AA1.7080003@logrus.com> Message-ID: <527197b50805171709i215344cbt65a40d206bda5a79@mail.gmail.com> Next weekend Drupal Doc Sprint! yay. I've been, as Lynette gracefully put it "UTTER SLACKFUL" (busy as all get out) lately. And wishing I could be doing more, but unfortunately that's just how the cookie crumbles, ya know? I will block out time next weekend as that seems to be the will of the group. Jake On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Lynette wrote: > I'm in favor of the 24/25 also. The 1st is my birthday and I plan to be > UTTER SLACKFUL :D > > - lynette > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Jake Roufa Web Consultant http://jacobroufa.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080517/6bcb78bb/attachment.htm From sepeck at gmail.com Sun May 18 02:33:27 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 19:33:27 -0700 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: <527197b50805171709i215344cbt65a40d206bda5a79@mail.gmail.com> References: <1E2C3292-AF63-4D6D-A4A9-6EEA49912B4C@brauerranch.com> <482E6AA1.7080003@logrus.com> <527197b50805171709i215344cbt65a40d206bda5a79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I doubt I will be available. My son's birthday is that weekend along with misc other plans that family visits bring. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Jacob Roufa wrote: > Next weekend Drupal Doc Sprint! yay. I've been, as Lynette gracefully put it > "UTTER SLACKFUL" (busy as all get out) lately. And wishing I could be doing > more, but unfortunately that's just how the cookie crumbles, ya know? I will > block out time next weekend as that seems to be the will of the group. > > Jake > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Lynette wrote: >> >> I'm in favor of the 24/25 also. The 1st is my birthday and I plan to be >> UTTER SLACKFUL :D >> >> - lynette >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > > > > -- > > Jake Roufa > Web Consultant > http://jacobroufa.com > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > From pinglaura at gmail.com Mon May 19 18:52:40 2008 From: pinglaura at gmail.com (Laura Scott) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 12:52:40 -0600 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15846b4e0805191152s5732c731ge4161be46fd6bc94@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > Are folks available to meet in the #drupal-docs IRC channel on either > the weekend of May 24/25 or May 31/June1? This will be specifically > about the Contrib Redesign and we can set a docs sprint day during > that meeting. Both weekends will work for me as long as I can block > the time out in advance. Please respond to the list with your > preferred date/time and the majority rule will win . :-) > > Holiday weekend might be tough and I'm in the midst of a huge architecture, but I will try to pop in, or at least follow-up on some action items that may result. Laura -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080519/b4bb4b1b/attachment.htm From drupal at rocktreesky.com Mon May 19 20:18:55 2008 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 16:18:55 -0400 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5DE7028B-F56F-4CF7-A4F1-AE276793D4A3@rocktreesky.com> Ok, looks like majority are gunning for this coming weekend so how about Saturday May 24 at 18:00 (6 pm) GMT / 2pm ET / 11am PT I'm not wedded to that day/time so, again, if folks make a strong case for another time we can move it around. Just please speak up quickly so we can set the meeting and folks can get it in their calendars. Thanks! :-) - Addi On May 16, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > Hey folks, things seem to have totally stalled on getting the > "contributions" thingy reorg for the docs going. I have been traveling > a *lot* lately but I will be home for a few weeks here. I'd like to > propose we have another IRC meeting for anyone interested in the > "Contrib Redesign" tickets so we can put this back on radar and > actually get it done. > > I'd also like to discuss having a "Docs sprint" day sometime soon > where we can have an all day "on-line documentation work/issue queue > cleanup/help newbie documenters" day. > > Are folks available to meet in the #drupal-docs IRC channel on either > the weekend of May 24/25 or May 31/June1? This will be specifically > about the Contrib Redesign and we can set a docs sprint day during > that meeting. Both weekends will work for me as long as I can block > the time out in advance. Please respond to the list with your > preferred date/time and the majority rule will win . :-) > > - Addi (aka add1sun) > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ From geoff.butterfield at edutopia.org Mon May 19 21:50:49 2008 From: geoff.butterfield at edutopia.org (Geoff Butterfield) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:50:49 -0700 Subject: [documentation] IRC meeting In-Reply-To: <5DE7028B-F56F-4CF7-A4F1-AE276793D4A3@rocktreesky.com> References: <5DE7028B-F56F-4CF7-A4F1-AE276793D4A3@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <58B688E5-7C0B-45DF-A0D9-6E877B65C3A7@edutopia.org> > Saturday May 24 at 18:00 (6 pm) GMT / 2pm ET / 11am PT works for me Geoff Butterfield | Senior Technology Producer The George Lucas Educational Foundation Edutopia.org, Edutopia magazine, and Edutopia Video p: 415-662-1741 On May 19, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > Ok, looks like majority are gunning for this coming weekend so how > about > > Saturday May 24 at 18:00 (6 pm) GMT / 2pm ET / 11am PT > > I'm not wedded to that day/time so, again, if folks make a strong case > for another time we can move it around. Just please speak up quickly > so we can set the meeting and folks can get it in their calendars. > Thanks! :-) > > - Addi > > On May 16, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > >> Hey folks, things seem to have totally stalled on getting the >> "contributions" thingy reorg for the docs going. I have been >> traveling >> a *lot* lately but I will be home for a few weeks here. I'd like to >> propose we have another IRC meeting for anyone interested in the >> "Contrib Redesign" tickets so we can put this back on radar and >> actually get it done. >> >> I'd also like to discuss having a "Docs sprint" day sometime soon >> where we can have an all day "on-line documentation work/issue queue >> cleanup/help newbie documenters" day. >> >> Are folks available to meet in the #drupal-docs IRC channel on either >> the weekend of May 24/25 or May 31/June1? This will be specifically >> about the Contrib Redesign and we can set a docs sprint day during >> that meeting. Both weekends will work for me as long as I can block >> the time out in advance. Please respond to the list with your >> preferred date/time and the majority rule will win . :-) >> >> - Addi (aka add1sun) >> -- >> 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 sdondley+drupal at gmail.com Sun May 25 04:31:55 2008 From: sdondley+drupal at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 00:31:55 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial Message-ID: <36b9121d0805242131k30a3f6f0sbb575171fb1101cb@mail.gmail.com> I wrote a new Forms API tutorial If you know something about Forms API, feedback on http://drupal.org/node/262422 would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From gurpartap at gmail.com Sun May 25 11:11:47 2008 From: gurpartap at gmail.com (Gurpartap Singh) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 16:41:47 +0530 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805242131k30a3f6f0sbb575171fb1101cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805242131k30a3f6f0sbb575171fb1101cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Most of the PHP code is not parsed to look colored. I mean you might be using instead of just for them. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Steve Dondley > wrote: > I wrote a new Forms API tutorial > > If you know something about Forms API, feedback on > http://drupal.org/node/262422 would be appreciated. > > Thanks. > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- regards, Gurpartap Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080525/ce95f10b/attachment-0001.htm From pwolanin at gmail.com Sun May 25 14:40:36 2008 From: pwolanin at gmail.com (Peter Wolanin) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:40:36 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial Message-ID: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> Steve, I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go in and edit them. That being said, thank you for starting on this - it looks like a nice resource. Two questions though: 1) how does this fit in with the quickstart guide? At the least, you should reference the existing API docs (and please, please look them over for errors). http://api.drupal.org/api/file/forms_api.html/6 http://api.drupal.org/api/file/forms_api_reference.html/6 2) Is there a doc issue for this, or should I just edit to make changes? For example, in this simple case you show, you could just make the page callback be drupal_get_form -Peter > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Steve Dondley" > To: documentation at drupal.org, development at drupal.org > Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 00:31:55 -0400 > Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial > I wrote a new Forms API tutorial > > If you know something about Forms API, feedback on > http://drupal.org/node/262422 would be appreciated. > > Thanks. > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > > From sdondley at gmail.com Sun May 25 15:09:31 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:09:31 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805250809v67ed5efcle3a67de1a4548e92@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Peter Wolanin wrote: > Steve, > > I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an > attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go > in and edit them. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, the whole Karma thing. Others can feel free to add themselves to the list of credits. > > That being said, thank you for starting on this - it looks like a nice > resource. Two questions though: 1) how does this fit in with the > quickstart guide? I make a couple of references to outside sources like this in the comments. > 2) Is there a doc issue for this, or should I just edit to make > changes? For example, in this simple case you show, you could just > make the page callback be drupal_get_form Right. I purposefully did it this way so those who weren't familiar with hook_menu could understand how it works. > > -Peter > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Steve Dondley" >> To: documentation at drupal.org, development at drupal.org >> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 00:31:55 -0400 >> Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial >> I wrote a new Forms API tutorial >> >> If you know something about Forms API, feedback on >> http://drupal.org/node/262422 would be appreciated. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> >> > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Sun May 25 15:10:23 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:10:23 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805250810o3d5cca5as3e2c5e726287baf5@mail.gmail.com> > 2) Is there a doc issue for this, or should I just edit to make > changes? Just make the changes. > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Steve Dondley" >> To: documentation at drupal.org, development at drupal.org >> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 00:31:55 -0400 >> Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial >> I wrote a new Forms API tutorial >> >> If you know something about Forms API, feedback on >> http://drupal.org/node/262422 would be appreciated. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> >> > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Sun May 25 15:41:43 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:41:43 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: References: <36b9121d0805242131k30a3f6f0sbb575171fb1101cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805250841g5aa12813k1078c5a402e6f331@mail.gmail.com> > I mean you might be using instead of just ... ?> for them. Right, I overlooked that. Someone fixed it up for me already. > > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Steve Dondley > wrote: >> >> I wrote a new Forms API tutorial >> >> If you know something about Forms API, feedback on >> http://drupal.org/node/262422 would be appreciated. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > > > > -- > regards, > Gurpartap Singh > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Sun May 25 16:16:53 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 12:16:53 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805250916y3bc72b02r80ff36f642a61f28@mail.gmail.com> > I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an > attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go > in and edit them. I just added a section to the top of the page where other contributors can be credited. If it gets too long, we'll revisit the problem. From drupal at rocktreesky.com Sun May 25 16:36:30 2008 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 12:36:30 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805250916y3bc72b02r80ff36f642a61f28@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805250916y3bc72b02r80ff36f642a61f28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Typically "credit" for who wrote or added to a handbook page is handled by the revisions tab where folks can see the whole history of users. That can be seen by all users and keeping it there makes the article itself much cleaner while still letting people see who did what. I'd prefer that we stick to that convention. - Addi On May 25, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an >> attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may >> go >> in and edit them. > > I just added a section to the top of the page where other contributors > can be credited. If it gets too long, we'll revisit the problem. > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ From s at dondley.com Sun May 25 16:41:45 2008 From: s at dondley.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 12:41:45 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805250916y3bc72b02r80ff36f642a61f28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805250941g75132ef5k9f0105d0c489ab80@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > Typically "credit" for who wrote or added to a handbook page is handled by > the revisions tab where folks can see the whole history of users. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission can see the list of revisions. Even so, I'd still propose to build in a more public mechanism for giving credit to document contributors. Not only does it build Karma for them, it will encourage other to contribute so they can see their name "in lights". > > On May 25, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > >>> I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an >>> attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go >>> in and edit them. >> >> I just added a section to the top of the page where other contributors >> can be credited. If it gets too long, we'll revisit the problem. >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From darthsteven at gmail.com Sun May 25 21:27:13 2008 From: darthsteven at gmail.com (Steven Jones) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 22:27:13 +0100 Subject: [documentation] FormsAPI, Was:New Forms API tutorial Message-ID: Given my excitement at all the attention the Forms API section of the handbook is getting recently, I thought that I'd pose a question or two... I don't like the way that Forms API is documented, there just isn't enough, and it's scattered around all over the place. The reference on a.d.o is awesome, but is on one huge page and isn't too nice to navigate. Now I'd like to change all that and put the reference into the handbook section, so that others could edit and comment easily, but... Navigation of the handbooks is worse than on a.d.o, and it would be a major step backwards if the reference went in there, in terms of navigation. So I was wondering how far off a docs.drupal.org is? Perhaps with some lovely MSDN style tree view navigation? Should I even bother? or should the Forms API section of the handbooks contain a more in-depth introduction to forms in Drupal and other 'how-to' tutorials. I'd really like to clean it up but would like to get some sense of what should go in it. I guess a general: what would be useful? Is what I'm after. Forms API -> http://drupal.org/node/37775 On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Addison Berry wrote: >> Typically "credit" for who wrote or added to a handbook page is handled by >> the revisions tab where folks can see the whole history of users. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission > can see the list of revisions. > > Even so, I'd still propose to build in a more public mechanism for > giving credit to document contributors. Not only does it build Karma > for them, it will encourage other to contribute so they can see their > name "in lights". > >> >> On May 25, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> >>>> I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an >>>> attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go >>>> in and edit them. >>> >>> I just added a section to the top of the page where other contributors >>> can be credited. If it gets too long, we'll revisit the problem. >>> -- >>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >> >> > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Regards Steven Jones From sdondley at gmail.com Sun May 25 22:49:31 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:49:31 -0400 Subject: [documentation] FormsAPI, Was:New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36b9121d0805251549p7a70ae0dma28a8ed8571f5c14@mail.gmail.com> I vote for moving them into one central location at d.o. Make the most sense to me. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Steven Jones wrote: > Given my excitement at all the attention the Forms API section of the > handbook is getting recently, I thought that I'd pose a question or > two... > > I don't like the way that Forms API is documented, there just isn't > enough, and it's scattered around all over the place. The reference on > a.d.o is awesome, but is on one huge page and isn't too nice to > navigate. > > Now I'd like to change all that and put the reference into the > handbook section, so that others could edit and comment easily, but... > > Navigation of the handbooks is worse than on a.d.o, and it would be a > major step backwards if the reference went in there, in terms of > navigation. So I was wondering how far off a docs.drupal.org is? > Perhaps with some lovely MSDN style tree view navigation? > > Should I even bother? or should the Forms API section of the handbooks > contain a more in-depth introduction to forms in Drupal and other > 'how-to' tutorials. I'd really like to clean it up but would like to > get some sense of what should go in it. I guess a general: what would > be useful? Is what I'm after. > > Forms API -> http://drupal.org/node/37775 > > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Addison Berry wrote: >>> Typically "credit" for who wrote or added to a handbook page is handled by >>> the revisions tab where folks can see the whole history of users. >> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission >> can see the list of revisions. >> >> Even so, I'd still propose to build in a more public mechanism for >> giving credit to document contributors. Not only does it build Karma >> for them, it will encourage other to contribute so they can see their >> name "in lights". >> >>> >>> On May 25, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an >>>>> attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go >>>>> in and edit them. >>>> >>>> I just added a section to the top of the page where other contributors >>>> can be credited. If it gets too long, we'll revisit the problem. >>>> -- >>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >> > > > > -- > Regards > Steven Jones > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sepeck at gmail.com Sun May 25 23:57:51 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 16:57:51 -0700 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805250941g75132ef5k9f0105d0c489ab80@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805250916y3bc72b02r80ff36f642a61f28@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805250941g75132ef5k9f0105d0c489ab80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: You are wrong. Any user account on Drupal.org can see the revisions. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Steve Dondley wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Addison Berry wrote: >> Typically "credit" for who wrote or added to a handbook page is handled by >> the revisions tab where folks can see the whole history of users. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission > can see the list of revisions. > > Even so, I'd still propose to build in a more public mechanism for > giving credit to document contributors. Not only does it build Karma > for them, it will encourage other to contribute so they can see their > name "in lights". > >> >> On May 25, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> >>>> I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an >>>> attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go >>>> in and edit them. >>> >>> I just added a section to the top of the page where other contributors >>> can be credited. If it gets too long, we'll revisit the problem. >>> -- >>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >> >> > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 00:02:04 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:02:04 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805250916y3bc72b02r80ff36f642a61f28@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805250941g75132ef5k9f0105d0c489ab80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805251702x69f974co166c790fbc12139c@mail.gmail.com> > You are wrong. Any user account on Drupal.org can see the revisions. Can you please enlighten me? Because I'm looking at the documentation while logged out and I see no "revisions" tab. > > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Addison Berry wrote: >>> Typically "credit" for who wrote or added to a handbook page is handled by >>> the revisions tab where folks can see the whole history of users. >> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission >> can see the list of revisions. >> >> Even so, I'd still propose to build in a more public mechanism for >> giving credit to document contributors. Not only does it build Karma >> for them, it will encourage other to contribute so they can see their >> name "in lights". >> >>> >>> On May 25, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm not sure it's a rule, but I think generally there is not an >>>>> attribution ("authored by") for handbook pages, since any of us may go >>>>> in and edit them. >>>> >>>> I just added a section to the top of the page where other contributors >>>> can be credited. If it gets too long, we'll revisit the problem. >>>> -- >>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> -- >> 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/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 00:40:16 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:40:16 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition Message-ID: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Someone reverted some documentation I submitted at http://drupal.org/node/262422 which removed a credit attributed to myself and others for writing the documentation. I specifically placed the credit in there to point out a bad oversight on the part of d.o. which is that documentation writers receive little to no public recognition for their work. Giving public recognition to contributors will work to move people out of the "user" category and into the "contributor" column for a few reasons: 1) It will cater to people's ego (yup, we all got 'em) to see their names in lights. 3) Most contributors seek karma. The only way to obtain karma is to give credit. 4) They might feel not sharing their talents while others freely share theirs. 5) It reminds them that there are real people behind all the work at d.o. and that it doesn't just magically appear for them. Currently, you have to be a registered user and logged into view the revisions. Even when you are logged in, the revisions tab is barely clicked and only by those actually maintaining the documents. With this in mind, I recommend the following: 1) A block down the side to give public recognition to all those who have contributed to the documentation (maybe sorted by the number of revisions). 2) A link at the top of the block to the list of revisions with an encouragement for user to click there to admire the hard work of others. I think this is a modest change that hopefully won't take a lot of effort. I think the payoff would be big. Thanks. -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 00:42:06 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:42:06 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805251742s112abdb2u5bb362882ad3065@mail.gmail.com> Item 4 should have read: 4) They might feel guilty not sharing their talents while the see others freely sharing theirs. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > Someone reverted some documentation I submitted at > http://drupal.org/node/262422 which removed a credit attributed to > myself and others for writing the documentation. I specifically placed > the credit in there to point out a bad oversight on the part of d.o. > which is that documentation writers receive little to no public > recognition for their work. > > Giving public recognition to contributors will work to move people out > of the "user" category and into the "contributor" column for a few > reasons: > > 1) It will cater to people's ego (yup, we all got 'em) to see their > names in lights. > 3) Most contributors seek karma. The only way to obtain karma is to give credit. > 4) They might feel not sharing their talents while others freely share theirs. > 5) It reminds them that there are real people behind all the work at > d.o. and that it doesn't just magically appear for them. > > Currently, you have to be a registered user and logged into view the > revisions. Even when you are logged in, the revisions tab is barely > clicked and only by those actually maintaining the documents. > > With this in mind, I recommend the following: > > 1) A block down the side to give public recognition to all those who > have contributed to the documentation (maybe sorted by the number of > revisions). > 2) A link at the top of the block to the list of revisions with an > encouragement for user to click there to admire the hard work of > others. > > I think this is a modest change that hopefully won't take a lot of > effort. I think the payoff would be big. > > Thanks. > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From larry at garfieldtech.com Mon May 26 00:48:39 2008 From: larry at garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 19:48:39 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251702x69f974co166c790fbc12139c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251702x69f974co166c790fbc12139c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200805251948.39515.larry@garfieldtech.com> On Sunday 25 May 2008, Steve Dondley wrote: > > You are wrong. Any user account on Drupal.org can see the revisions. > > Can you please enlighten me? Because I'm looking at the documentation > while logged out and I see no "revisions" tab. Anonymous isn't a "real" user account. He said any user account, vis, uid 1 or higher. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry at garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 00:53:03 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:53:03 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <200805251948.39515.larry@garfieldtech.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251702x69f974co166c790fbc12139c@mail.gmail.com> <200805251948.39515.larry@garfieldtech.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805251753p47ed3221x4c32d395fc22392b@mail.gmail.com> Let's not lost the forest for the trees. The larger point is that all users should still be able to easily view who contributed to the cause. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Steve Dondley wrote: >> > You are wrong. Any user account on Drupal.org can see the revisions. >> >> Can you please enlighten me? Because I'm looking at the documentation >> while logged out and I see no "revisions" tab. > > Anonymous isn't a "real" user account. He said any user account, vis, uid 1 > or higher. > > -- > Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 > larry at garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 > > "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of > exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, > which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to > himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession > of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas > Jefferson > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From nan_wich at bellsouth.net Mon May 26 00:54:21 2008 From: nan_wich at bellsouth.net (Nancy Wichmann) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:54:21 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Giving public recognition to contributors will work to move people out > of the "user" category and into the "contributor" column for a few > reasons: It wil also result in increased direct email to the contributors rather than the use of issue queues and comment posts on the page. Nancy From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 00:56:43 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:56:43 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <200805251948.39515.larry@garfieldtech.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251702x69f974co166c790fbc12139c@mail.gmail.com> <200805251948.39515.larry@garfieldtech.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805251756i2a72a19byc12b8efa32adf9b@mail.gmail.com> And just for the record, here was my original assertion: "Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission can see the list of revisions." I never said "user accounts". I said "those with permission". That would be a superset of all users, anonymous or not. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Steve Dondley wrote: >> > You are wrong. Any user account on Drupal.org can see the revisions. >> >> Can you please enlighten me? Because I'm looking at the documentation >> while logged out and I see no "revisions" tab. > > Anonymous isn't a "real" user account. He said any user account, vis, uid 1 > or higher. > > -- > Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 > larry at garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 > > "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of > exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, > which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to > himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession > of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas > Jefferson > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From s at dondley.com Mon May 26 00:59:33 2008 From: s at dondley.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:59:33 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> Great point. Which sparks an idea: Why not give document pages ownership like we do projects? Why should documentation get what amounts to 2nd class karma status? Might be a more comprehensive change but it could also be very worthwhile. On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Nancy Wichmann wrote: >> Giving public recognition to contributors will work to move people out >> of the "user" category and into the "contributor" column for a few >> reasons: > > It wil also result in increased direct email to the contributors rather than > the use of issue queues and comment posts on the page. > > > Nancy > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From drupal-docs at webchick.net Mon May 26 03:55:06 2008 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 23:55:06 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> Steve Dondley wrote: > Great point. > > Which sparks an idea: Why not give document pages ownership like we > do projects? Why should documentation get what amounts to 2nd class > karma status? Might be a more comprehensive change but it could also > be very worthwhile. I don't like this approach, for three reasons: 1. I like the fact that right now, if I spot a typo, or a page that could use some general clean-up, I can just go in and fix it. I don't need to get "approval" from someone, because the handbook and its content belongs to /all/ of us, and each of the docs team members are all the collective caretakers of it. 2. I can't speak for others, but for me... the vast majority of the time when I document something in the handbook it's for two reasons: a) to put somewhere so that I can find it again if I ever run into it in the future, b) to help others do the same. If creating a handbook page meant I was to become personally responsible for the well-being of that page from now into eternity, I probably would opt instead for not writing the page. 3. I /really/ don't want people e-mailing me for tech support on pages that I've written. That would also make me opt for *not* contributing to the handbook. I want people posting issues to the docs queue, and for us all to collectively take care of things as they come up, because that a) takes the support burden off of people who are taking the time to write pages in the first place, and b) also makes all of us more well-rounded in our knowledge (nothing did more for my understanding of CVS than working with dww to clean up the CVS handbook, for instance). --- Let's take a practical example of why I oppose a move like this. "Clean URL support in XAMPP": http://drupal.org/node/43545. I wrote this page initially because I had lost an hour futzing with getting this to work and wanted to document it quickly for future reference. About two weeks later, I ended up starting a new job and buying a Mac, after which time I never touched XAMPP again. Over the years (http://drupal.org/node/43545/revisions), other members of the docs team have greatly expanded and improved this page beyond its initial scratchings. They never once hassled me to ask if they could update it; they just saw the need for improvement and went at it. This is a *good* thing, and as you can see, has resulted in a much better piece of documentation for the community. If you had to give some sort of "credit" for this page, to whom would you give it? Certainly not to me; I started the page and never went back again (okay, once, to re-parent it). add1sun has the most revisions if you count raw numbers, but most of her work was around making the formatting nicer rather than adding technical detail. No, this is an example of a handbook page collectively owned, maintained, and improved by *the Drupal community*. It transcends ownership of any particular individual. And this is a great thing. And if this page example is too trite for you, I could point to dozens more, including the CVS Quickstart Guide @ http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs/quickstart which I'm pretty sure just about everyone has used at one point or another. -Angie From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 04:20:55 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:20:55 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> > 1. I like the fact that right now, if I spot a typo, or a page that > could use some general clean-up, I can just go in and fix it. I don't > need to get "approval" from someone, because the handbook and its > content belongs to /all/ of us, and each of the docs team members are > all the collective caretakers of it. Good points. My error was throwing around the word "ownership" over pages. Bad choice of words because it's not really what I had in mind. Perhaps "maintainer" would be better. "Ownership" conjures up all the scenarios you mention. So let me clear it up. I didn't mean to suggest that document maintainers would have the same restrictive gatekeeper role as a module maintainer. Instead, I would envision someone who calls themselves a "maintainer" of a page, a role they can choose to relinquish at any time. Each page could have multiple maintainers but anyone could still edit the page. Some pages might have zero maintainers until someone decides to step up. Having a document maintainer is just a way for a person to publicly declare, "I'm interested in taking an active role in improving and maintaining the quality of this document." This would be someone who wants to get notified or asked for advice on what's on that page. Nothing more than that. They could easily drop out of that role anytime they wanted. So what's the difference between that and what we have now? Well, in my mind, the big difference between a "maintainer" and a "contributor" is that a "maintainer" is willing to take requests directly from the community and do the contributing on behalf of others. But, again, nothing would ever give the maintainer the power over others to contribute. They would just be someone you could defer to. > > --- > > Let's take a practical example of why I oppose a move like this. > > "Clean URL support in XAMPP": http://drupal.org/node/43545. > > I wrote this page initially because I had lost an hour futzing with > getting this to work and wanted to document it quickly for future > reference. About two weeks later, I ended up starting a new job and > buying a Mac, after which time I never touched XAMPP again. > > Over the years (http://drupal.org/node/43545/revisions), other members > of the docs team have greatly expanded and improved this page beyond its > initial scratchings. They never once hassled me to ask if they could > update it; they just saw the need for improvement and went at it. This > is a *good* thing, and as you can see, has resulted in a much better > piece of documentation for the community. > > If you had to give some sort of "credit" for this page, to whom would > you give it? Certainly not to me; I started the page and never went back > again (okay, once, to re-parent it). add1sun has the most revisions if > you count raw numbers, but most of her work was around making the > formatting nicer rather than adding technical detail. No, this is an > example of a handbook page collectively owned, maintained, and improved > by *the Drupal community*. It transcends ownership of any particular > individual. And this is a great thing. > > And if this page example is too trite for you, I could point to dozens > more, including the CVS Quickstart Guide @ > http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs/quickstart which I'm pretty sure just > about everyone has used at one point or another. > > -Angie > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 04:25:26 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:25:26 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252125q4eed2b65v4d2aacf55fda7fc8@mail.gmail.com> Let me add to the very end "defer to if you wanted to." On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> 1. I like the fact that right now, if I spot a typo, or a page that >> could use some general clean-up, I can just go in and fix it. I don't >> need to get "approval" from someone, because the handbook and its >> content belongs to /all/ of us, and each of the docs team members are >> all the collective caretakers of it. > > Good points. My error was throwing around the word "ownership" over > pages. Bad choice of words because it's not really what I had in mind. > Perhaps "maintainer" would be better. "Ownership" conjures up all the > scenarios you mention. > > So let me clear it up. I didn't mean to suggest that document > maintainers would have the same restrictive gatekeeper role as a > module maintainer. Instead, I would envision someone who calls > themselves a "maintainer" of a page, a role they can choose to > relinquish at any time. Each page could have multiple maintainers but > anyone could still edit the page. Some pages might have zero > maintainers until someone decides to step up. Having a document > maintainer is just a way for a person to publicly declare, "I'm > interested in taking an active role in improving and maintaining the > quality of this document." This would be someone who wants to get > notified or asked for advice on what's on that page. Nothing more than > that. They could easily drop out of that role anytime they wanted. > > So what's the difference between that and what we have now? Well, in > my mind, the big difference between a "maintainer" and a "contributor" > is that a "maintainer" is willing to take requests directly from the > community and do the contributing on behalf of others. But, again, > nothing would ever give the maintainer the power over others to > contribute. They would just be someone you could defer to. > > > >> >> --- >> >> Let's take a practical example of why I oppose a move like this. >> >> "Clean URL support in XAMPP": http://drupal.org/node/43545. >> >> I wrote this page initially because I had lost an hour futzing with >> getting this to work and wanted to document it quickly for future >> reference. About two weeks later, I ended up starting a new job and >> buying a Mac, after which time I never touched XAMPP again. >> >> Over the years (http://drupal.org/node/43545/revisions), other members >> of the docs team have greatly expanded and improved this page beyond its >> initial scratchings. They never once hassled me to ask if they could >> update it; they just saw the need for improvement and went at it. This >> is a *good* thing, and as you can see, has resulted in a much better >> piece of documentation for the community. >> >> If you had to give some sort of "credit" for this page, to whom would >> you give it? Certainly not to me; I started the page and never went back >> again (okay, once, to re-parent it). add1sun has the most revisions if >> you count raw numbers, but most of her work was around making the >> formatting nicer rather than adding technical detail. No, this is an >> example of a handbook page collectively owned, maintained, and improved >> by *the Drupal community*. It transcends ownership of any particular >> individual. And this is a great thing. >> >> And if this page example is too trite for you, I could point to dozens >> more, including the CVS Quickstart Guide @ >> http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs/quickstart which I'm pretty sure just >> about everyone has used at one point or another. >> >> -Angie >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >> > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From shai at content2zero.com Mon May 26 04:30:02 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:30:02 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251756i2a72a19byc12b8efa32adf9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251702x69f974co166c790fbc12139c@mail.gmail.com> <200805251948.39515.larry@garfieldtech.com> <36b9121d0805251756i2a72a19byc12b8efa32adf9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805252130i2cba3bd5yca32334f9fb705d6@mail.gmail.com> Steve, +1 to Addi's approach. I think not attributing aricles on their face gives the handbook a Wikipedia feel. The page itself isn't authored by anyone, but finding out who was involved is just one click away. While it is true that anonymous users can not see the revision tab, I believe for drupal.org this requirement should be considered a fairly low barrier. Shai On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > And just for the record, here was my original assertion: > > "Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission > can see the list of revisions." > > I never said "user accounts". I said "those with permission". That > would be a superset of all users, anonymous or not. > > > > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Larry Garfield > wrote: > > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Steve Dondley wrote: > >> > You are wrong. Any user account on Drupal.org can see the revisions. > >> > >> Can you please enlighten me? Because I'm looking at the documentation > >> while logged out and I see no "revisions" tab. > > > > Anonymous isn't a "real" user account. He said any user account, vis, > uid 1 > > or higher. > > > > -- > > Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 > > larry at garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 > > > > "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of > > exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an > idea, > > which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to > > himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the > possession > > of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- > Thomas > > Jefferson > > -- > > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > > > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- > 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/20080526/8538727d/attachment-0001.htm From drupal-docs at webchick.net Mon May 26 04:33:22 2008 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:33:22 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> Message-ID: <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> Angela Byron wrote: > Steve Dondley wrote: >> Great point. >> >> Which sparks an idea: Why not give document pages ownership like we >> do projects? Why should documentation get what amounts to 2nd class >> karma status? Might be a more comprehensive change but it could also >> be very worthwhile. As if I didn't type enough in my previous reply... ;) I also don't buy this "2nd class karma status" bit at all. I see handbook contribution on exactly the same level as core patch contribution. From index.php: --- $return = menu_execute_active_handler(); --- That's the single line that makes Drupal do anything. Do you know who wrote that line of code? Probably not. Does it really matter? No. What matters is that Drupal is a kick-ass piece of software. Similarly, our goal as docs team members should be to make the handbook a kick-ass piece of documentation. It doesn't matter who started a page, or who spent the most time on it, or who fixed the most typos. Improving the handbook has direct benefits for /everyone/ involved in the Drupal ecosphere. Btw, it turns out, the person who wrote that line of code is chx (actually, it was originally written long before, and chx was the last person to refactor it, but nonetheless...). I couldn't begin to list the lines of code in Drupal that belong to chx, or that chx has touched. I don't think even chx could do that. :) But yet, somehow everyone knows that chx contributes an enormous amount of code to Drupal core. And somehow chx comes across as someone knowledgeable about Drupal. And when chx says something, people listen. It's because of his *actions*, not because of the *credit* given to those actions. The credit for core commits is actually /harder/ to determine than those for handbook pages; there's no nice revisions page showing you a list; you have to go sifting through cvs annotate and cvs log to figure out this kind of stuff. But by all means, add "Contributed 10-Step Form API tutorial" to your Drupal resum? (just as I'm sure chx has "Re-wrote the Drupal menu system" on his, and I have "Wrote the Form API Reference" on mine). There's nothing wrong with being proud of the work you've done, and communicating to clients and business partners that you're committed to improving Drupal's documentation. -Angie From s at dondley.com Mon May 26 04:38:14 2008 From: s at dondley.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:38:14 -0400 Subject: [documentation] New Forms API tutorial In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805252130i2cba3bd5yca32334f9fb705d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805250740w7b614207l47a1bf4e8dda0e8f@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251702x69f974co166c790fbc12139c@mail.gmail.com> <200805251948.39515.larry@garfieldtech.com> <36b9121d0805251756i2a72a19byc12b8efa32adf9b@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805252130i2cba3bd5yca32334f9fb705d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252138n6a832d28n68b45a48ef3ed73b@mail.gmail.com> > I think not attributing aricles on their face gives the handbook a Wikipedia > feel. The page itself isn't authored by anyone, but finding out who was > involved is just one click away. I thinks we'd get more contributors if we were better at giving public credit to contributors. Please see my post earlier this evening: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/006023.html > While it is true that anonymous users can not see the revision tab, I > believe for drupal.org this requirement should be considered a fairly low > barrier. Why have any barrier at all? Is there some good reason we should hide who contributed to the Drupal project? I can't think of why it benefits the Drupal project in any way to hide contributors from anonymous users. Why not have a nice block "the following people have contributed to this page...you can too!" Don't you think that would be much better at getting finding contributors. Because that's what this is really about, encouraging people to contribute. Hiding the list does not encourage people to contribute, having a public list does. Please address this issue in the context of this post: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/006023.html > > Shai > > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> >> And just for the record, here was my original assertion: >> >> "Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but only those with permission >> can see the list of revisions." >> >> I never said "user accounts". I said "those with permission". That >> would be a superset of all users, anonymous or not. >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Larry Garfield >> wrote: >> > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Steve Dondley wrote: >> >> > You are wrong. Any user account on Drupal.org can see the revisions. >> >> >> >> Can you please enlighten me? Because I'm looking at the documentation >> >> while logged out and I see no "revisions" tab. >> > >> > Anonymous isn't a "real" user account. He said any user account, vis, >> > uid 1 >> > or higher. >> > >> > -- >> > Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 >> > larry at garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 >> > >> > "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of >> > exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an >> > idea, >> > which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to >> > himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the >> > possession >> > of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- >> > Thomas >> > Jefferson >> > -- >> > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From fernando at develcuy.com Mon May 26 04:48:49 2008 From: fernando at develcuy.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_P._Garc=C3=ADa?=) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 23:48:49 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> Message-ID: <5ba75e2f0805252148p53adc57dye5c27bbb8697030d@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Just to bring my 1 cent on it, I agree with Angie(webchick), credit is for "Drupal community", consider also that users can list what they contributed in their d.o profile ("I contributed Drupal Documentation"), and there is a textarea which could be used to fill a list of i.e: "Documentation I worked on". Blessings! On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Angela Byron wrote: > Angela Byron wrote: > > Steve Dondley wrote: > >> Great point. > >> > >> Which sparks an idea: Why not give document pages ownership like we > >> do projects? Why should documentation get what amounts to 2nd class > >> karma status? Might be a more comprehensive change but it could also > >> be very worthwhile. > > As if I didn't type enough in my previous reply... ;) > > I also don't buy this "2nd class karma status" bit at all. I see > handbook contribution on exactly the same level as core patch contribution. > > From index.php: > > --- > > $return = menu_execute_active_handler(); > > --- > > That's the single line that makes Drupal do anything. Do you know who > wrote that line of code? Probably not. Does it really matter? No. What > matters is that Drupal is a kick-ass piece of software. > > Similarly, our goal as docs team members should be to make the handbook > a kick-ass piece of documentation. It doesn't matter who started a page, > or who spent the most time on it, or who fixed the most typos. Improving > the handbook has direct benefits for /everyone/ involved in the Drupal > ecosphere. > > Btw, it turns out, the person who wrote that line of code is chx > (actually, it was originally written long before, and chx was the last > person to refactor it, but nonetheless...). I couldn't begin to list the > lines of code in Drupal that belong to chx, or that chx has touched. I > don't think even chx could do that. :) > > But yet, somehow everyone knows that chx contributes an enormous amount > of code to Drupal core. And somehow chx comes across as someone > knowledgeable about Drupal. And when chx says something, people listen. > It's because of his *actions*, not because of the *credit* given to > those actions. The credit for core commits is actually /harder/ to > determine than those for handbook pages; there's no nice revisions page > showing you a list; you have to go sifting through cvs annotate and cvs > log to figure out this kind of stuff. > > But by all means, add "Contributed 10-Step Form API tutorial" to your > Drupal resum? (just as I'm sure chx has "Re-wrote the Drupal menu > system" on his, and I have "Wrote the Form API Reference" on mine). > There's nothing wrong with being proud of the work you've done, and > communicating to clients and business partners that you're committed to > improving Drupal's documentation. > > -Angie > -- > 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/20080525/5b21647b/attachment.htm From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 04:49:37 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:49:37 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252149h24f0a5adk82764859dde962a4@mail.gmail.com> Everything you write backs up my point precisely, actually, that we need to be better about giving credit. Because we give credit to people all the time just by displaying their name! How do I know chx? By three letters "chx". How do I know who you are? By the letters "webchick". When I see those letters attached to the the forum posts, in IRC, and in patches, I know that that person does good work. That's solely how you built your reputation in the community by attaching your work to the moniker "webchick"! Giving credit to others, and going out of your way to give credit to others, builds the project. I find it hard to believe you would argue otherwise. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > Angela Byron wrote: >> Steve Dondley wrote: >>> Great point. >>> >>> Which sparks an idea: Why not give document pages ownership like we >>> do projects? Why should documentation get what amounts to 2nd class >>> karma status? Might be a more comprehensive change but it could also >>> be very worthwhile. > > As if I didn't type enough in my previous reply... ;) > > I also don't buy this "2nd class karma status" bit at all. I see > handbook contribution on exactly the same level as core patch contribution. > > From index.php: > > --- > > $return = menu_execute_active_handler(); > > --- > > That's the single line that makes Drupal do anything. Do you know who > wrote that line of code? Probably not. Does it really matter? No. What > matters is that Drupal is a kick-ass piece of software. > > Similarly, our goal as docs team members should be to make the handbook > a kick-ass piece of documentation. It doesn't matter who started a page, > or who spent the most time on it, or who fixed the most typos. Improving > the handbook has direct benefits for /everyone/ involved in the Drupal > ecosphere. > > Btw, it turns out, the person who wrote that line of code is chx > (actually, it was originally written long before, and chx was the last > person to refactor it, but nonetheless...). I couldn't begin to list the > lines of code in Drupal that belong to chx, or that chx has touched. I > don't think even chx could do that. :) > > But yet, somehow everyone knows that chx contributes an enormous amount > of code to Drupal core. And somehow chx comes across as someone > knowledgeable about Drupal. And when chx says something, people listen. > It's because of his *actions*, not because of the *credit* given to > those actions. The credit for core commits is actually /harder/ to > determine than those for handbook pages; there's no nice revisions page > showing you a list; you have to go sifting through cvs annotate and cvs > log to figure out this kind of stuff. > > But by all means, add "Contributed 10-Step Form API tutorial" to your > Drupal resum? (just as I'm sure chx has "Re-wrote the Drupal menu > system" on his, and I have "Wrote the Form API Reference" on mine). > There's nothing wrong with being proud of the work you've done, and > communicating to clients and business partners that you're committed to > improving Drupal's documentation. > > -Angie > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From shai at content2zero.com Mon May 26 04:49:56 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:49:56 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252125q4eed2b65v4d2aacf55fda7fc8@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252125q4eed2b65v4d2aacf55fda7fc8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805252149k5f971aem8767095e3566b930@mail.gmail.com> I like Steve's approach here. Lot's of clarification has emerged from the back and forth. There could be a bit of a UI problem caused by the difference in meaning for "maintainer" in the *documentation* context vs "maintainer" in the *project*context. Maybe an entirely different terminology could be used. I think Steve's proposals are worth a try. He has answered webchick's concerns quite well. Shai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/102601d7/attachment-0001.htm From joshua at brauerranch.com Mon May 26 04:55:29 2008 From: joshua at brauerranch.com (Joshua Brauer) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 22:55:29 -0600 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I tend to agree with Angie's assessment here. First off I certainly agree with the bit about not wanting people to email me for support and that would be a big reason I'd stay away from docs. I was reminded of this recently when a member of the docs team was harassed on their own site for trying to help people. When it comes to recognition that the documentation is done by real people there seem to be two categories of folks. Those who "get it" and appreciate the work of the folks who contribute and those who "don't" and won't no matter how much effort we put into it. When it comes to the idea of "maintainer-ship" for specific pages I'm afraid this could have undesired results. First off it would tend to change the way people in the team work on documents. Instead of working on those that most need work I'd be inclined to work on those I was "responsible" for. And not wanting to spread myself too thin would keep that set small... But we would have some pages getting a lot of attention and updates and fixing up, while other, arguably more 'important' pages get less attention. As it is now it is easy to change focus as the needs change. I don't feel any need to find a new "maintainer" when I'm no longer staying familiar enough with a page to be the "maintainer". Lastly this model seems similar to the "Editor" at dmoz.org which hasn't seemed to work all that well in my estimation as a user and one-time editor. And I don't know that I accept that there's any less karma in our current system than there could/should/would be with a different system. Again part of this goes back to the motivations of the users of the information. Johnny Newbie will come to the site and even with a long list of names on each page will use the information he wants, possibly not even have a d.o account and get some information. Suzi Sitemaker will come for more information and will have an account after she's spent a bit of time on the site and as she starts to look around she'll quickly understand the contributions made by the documentation team to the community and will begin to understand and appreciate community karma and the role documentation plays in that process. Josh --------------------------- Joshua Brauer Brauer Ranch Ltd. Co. http://BrauerRanch.com Making life better by making Drupal easy. On May 25, 2008, at 10:20 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> 1. I like the fact that right now, if I spot a typo, or a page that >> could use some general clean-up, I can just go in and fix it. I don't >> need to get "approval" from someone, because the handbook and its >> content belongs to /all/ of us, and each of the docs team members are >> all the collective caretakers of it. > > Good points. My error was throwing around the word "ownership" over > pages. Bad choice of words because it's not really what I had in mind. > Perhaps "maintainer" would be better. "Ownership" conjures up all the > scenarios you mention. > > So let me clear it up. I didn't mean to suggest that document > maintainers would have the same restrictive gatekeeper role as a > module maintainer. Instead, I would envision someone who calls > themselves a "maintainer" of a page, a role they can choose to > relinquish at any time. Each page could have multiple maintainers but > anyone could still edit the page. Some pages might have zero > maintainers until someone decides to step up. Having a document > maintainer is just a way for a person to publicly declare, "I'm > interested in taking an active role in improving and maintaining the > quality of this document." This would be someone who wants to get > notified or asked for advice on what's on that page. Nothing more than > that. They could easily drop out of that role anytime they wanted. > > So what's the difference between that and what we have now? Well, in > my mind, the big difference between a "maintainer" and a "contributor" > is that a "maintainer" is willing to take requests directly from the > community and do the contributing on behalf of others. But, again, > nothing would ever give the maintainer the power over others to > contribute. They would just be someone you could defer to. > From Angie's earlier post > > 3. I /really/ don't want people e-mailing me for tech support on pages > that I've written. That would also make me opt for *not* > contributing to > the handbook. I want people posting issues to the docs queue, and > for us > all to collectively take care of things as they come up, because > that a) > takes the support burden off of people who are taking the time to > write > pages in the first place, and b) also makes all of us more well- > rounded > in our knowledge (nothing did more for my understanding of CVS than > working with dww to clean up the CVS handbook, for instance). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2427 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080525/86f75e95/attachment.bin From drupal-docs at webchick.net Mon May 26 04:56:04 2008 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:56:04 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252125q4eed2b65v4d2aacf55fda7fc8@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252125q4eed2b65v4d2aacf55fda7fc8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483A42E4.3080707@webchick.net> Steve Dondley wrote: >> So what's the difference between that and what we have now? Well, in >> my mind, the big difference between a "maintainer" and a "contributor" >> is that a "maintainer" is willing to take requests directly from the >> community and do the contributing on behalf of others. But, again, >> nothing would ever give the maintainer the power over others to >> contribute. They would just be someone you could defer to. So... We could wait around for someone to code a "sign up to be a maintainer of this page/don't make me a maintainer of this page anymore/contact me here for problems on this page" thing, which would then need to be reviewed by the security team, tested and integrated into d.o, thus taking volunteer time away from other efforts on existing security reviews and other priorities on the d.o redesign... not to mention take what are now existing *public* comments, whose clarification benefit the entire community and instead send them on as private notes via e-mail to the handbook page maintainer, in the hopes that they actually meant it when they said they would maintain the page and these helpful comments won't just end up in a spam folder somewhere... Or! If someone cares about a page, they could simply monitor it for comments, respond to any inquiries, and update the page as needed, thus asserting themselves as the "maintainer" of said page. a.k.a, exactly what we have now, with no extra effort required. :) I know which one I'd prefer to go with. ;) -Angie From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 04:56:16 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:56:16 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252156r7f52f4aeu6275e6041574d9@mail.gmail.com> And again, I will stress the importance of giving public credit to documentation writers (and all other kinds of contributors, for that matter) on the Drupal project by referring to my post which more explicitly states why we need to be as public as possible about it: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/006023.html Let me add another item to the list: some people don't like the idea of shamelessly promoting their work. But I bet you they sure do enjoy a good pat on the back, even it's to just to see their name attached to their work. I remember how good I felt the day I made my first patch to drupal core. I felt it was a great accomplishment and it made me feel real good to get acknowledged for it. It was a little high that motivated me to do more. If that's not a good reason to be more public with giving credit to others, that it will help build the Drupal project, I don't know what is. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > Angela Byron wrote: >> Steve Dondley wrote: >>> Great point. >>> >>> Which sparks an idea: Why not give document pages ownership like we >>> do projects? Why should documentation get what amounts to 2nd class >>> karma status? Might be a more comprehensive change but it could also >>> be very worthwhile. > > As if I didn't type enough in my previous reply... ;) > > I also don't buy this "2nd class karma status" bit at all. I see > handbook contribution on exactly the same level as core patch contribution. > > From index.php: > > --- > > $return = menu_execute_active_handler(); > > --- > > That's the single line that makes Drupal do anything. Do you know who > wrote that line of code? Probably not. Does it really matter? No. What > matters is that Drupal is a kick-ass piece of software. > > Similarly, our goal as docs team members should be to make the handbook > a kick-ass piece of documentation. It doesn't matter who started a page, > or who spent the most time on it, or who fixed the most typos. Improving > the handbook has direct benefits for /everyone/ involved in the Drupal > ecosphere. > > Btw, it turns out, the person who wrote that line of code is chx > (actually, it was originally written long before, and chx was the last > person to refactor it, but nonetheless...). I couldn't begin to list the > lines of code in Drupal that belong to chx, or that chx has touched. I > don't think even chx could do that. :) > > But yet, somehow everyone knows that chx contributes an enormous amount > of code to Drupal core. And somehow chx comes across as someone > knowledgeable about Drupal. And when chx says something, people listen. > It's because of his *actions*, not because of the *credit* given to > those actions. The credit for core commits is actually /harder/ to > determine than those for handbook pages; there's no nice revisions page > showing you a list; you have to go sifting through cvs annotate and cvs > log to figure out this kind of stuff. > > But by all means, add "Contributed 10-Step Form API tutorial" to your > Drupal resum? (just as I'm sure chx has "Re-wrote the Drupal menu > system" on his, and I have "Wrote the Form API Reference" on mine). > There's nothing wrong with being proud of the work you've done, and > communicating to clients and business partners that you're committed to > improving Drupal's documentation. > > -Angie > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 04:59:47 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:59:47 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A42E4.3080707@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252125q4eed2b65v4d2aacf55fda7fc8@mail.gmail.com> <483A42E4.3080707@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252159i62c482bfp468e7268e9b23e08@mail.gmail.com> If it's probably not worth the effort, don't do it. It was a spur of the moment idea. In fact, I'm not really interested in debating this feature further. But I will defend this to the teeth: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/006023.html. This needs to happen. It's simple to do and will reap benefits. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > Steve Dondley wrote: >>> So what's the difference between that and what we have now? Well, in >>> my mind, the big difference between a "maintainer" and a "contributor" >>> is that a "maintainer" is willing to take requests directly from the >>> community and do the contributing on behalf of others. But, again, >>> nothing would ever give the maintainer the power over others to >>> contribute. They would just be someone you could defer to. > > So... > > We could wait around for someone to code a "sign up to be a maintainer > of this page/don't make me a maintainer of this page anymore/contact me > here for problems on this page" thing, which would then need to be > reviewed by the security team, tested and integrated into d.o, thus > taking volunteer time away from other efforts on existing security > reviews and other priorities on the d.o redesign... not to mention take > what are now existing *public* comments, whose clarification benefit the > entire community and instead send them on as private notes via e-mail to > the handbook page maintainer, in the hopes that they actually meant it > when they said they would maintain the page and these helpful comments > won't just end up in a spam folder somewhere... > > Or! > > If someone cares about a page, they could simply monitor it for > comments, respond to any inquiries, and update the page as needed, thus > asserting themselves as the "maintainer" of said page. a.k.a, exactly > what we have now, with no extra effort required. :) > > I know which one I'd prefer to go with. ;) > > -Angie > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 05:01:22 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:01:22 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A42E4.3080707@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252125q4eed2b65v4d2aacf55fda7fc8@mail.gmail.com> <483A42E4.3080707@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252201m30b1dc46ge22b1f337b5fd4b2@mail.gmail.com> So let's get back to my initial proposal, please: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/006023.html We are getting badly sidetracked. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > Steve Dondley wrote: >>> So what's the difference between that and what we have now? Well, in >>> my mind, the big difference between a "maintainer" and a "contributor" >>> is that a "maintainer" is willing to take requests directly from the >>> community and do the contributing on behalf of others. But, again, >>> nothing would ever give the maintainer the power over others to >>> contribute. They would just be someone you could defer to. > > So... > > We could wait around for someone to code a "sign up to be a maintainer > of this page/don't make me a maintainer of this page anymore/contact me > here for problems on this page" thing, which would then need to be > reviewed by the security team, tested and integrated into d.o, thus > taking volunteer time away from other efforts on existing security > reviews and other priorities on the d.o redesign... not to mention take > what are now existing *public* comments, whose clarification benefit the > entire community and instead send them on as private notes via e-mail to > the handbook page maintainer, in the hopes that they actually meant it > when they said they would maintain the page and these helpful comments > won't just end up in a spam folder somewhere... > > Or! > > If someone cares about a page, they could simply monitor it for > comments, respond to any inquiries, and update the page as needed, thus > asserting themselves as the "maintainer" of said page. a.k.a, exactly > what we have now, with no extra effort required. :) > > I know which one I'd prefer to go with. ;) > > -Angie > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From shai at content2zero.com Mon May 26 05:03:13 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:03:13 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252149h24f0a5adk82764859dde962a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252149h24f0a5adk82764859dde962a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805252203m7d2e35cfx21ec1349311a3392@mail.gmail.com> Gang, Karma this, karma that -- karma happens based on what you do, not on how you get credit for it. I don't think karma is at the core of this conversation. It's about making docs at drupal.org better. I think this paragraph is at the heart of Steve's proposal: So let me clear it up. I didn't mean to suggest that document > maintainers would have the same restrictive gatekeeper role as a > module maintainer. Instead, I would envision someone who calls > themselves a "maintainer" of a page, a role they can choose to > relinquish at any time. Each page could have multiple maintainers but > anyone could still edit the page. Some pages might have zero > maintainers until someone decides to step up. Having a document > maintainer is just a way for a person to publicly declare, "I'm > interested in taking an active role in improving and maintaining the > quality of this document." This would be someone who wants to get > notified or asked for advice on what's on that page. Nothing more than > that. They could easily drop out of that role anytime they wanted. I think what Steve is talking about is providing an opportunity for people to better *step up to take ownership *of docs in a way that doesn't exclude others. Why would we want to prevent people from feeling responsible for certain doc pages and being more accessible to folks seeking clarification, more help, etc? Shai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/832b3863/attachment.htm From s at dondley.com Mon May 26 05:05:31 2008 From: s at dondley.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:05:31 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805252203m7d2e35cfx21ec1349311a3392@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252149h24f0a5adk82764859dde962a4@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805252203m7d2e35cfx21ec1349311a3392@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252205o40a3ba8drad17984ab712270d@mail.gmail.com> As I just explained, that is NOT the heart of my proposal. I really don't care about that feature. The heart of my proposal is the original post: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/006023.html The proposal is really just to "be more public about giving credit". That's all I'm saying. No one should be opposed to that. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > Gang, > > Karma this, karma that -- karma happens based on what you do, not on how you > get credit for it. I don't think karma is at the core of this conversation. > > It's about making docs at drupal.org better. > > I think this paragraph is at the heart of Steve's proposal: > >> So let me clear it up. I didn't mean to suggest that document >> maintainers would have the same restrictive gatekeeper role as a >> module maintainer. Instead, I would envision someone who calls >> themselves a "maintainer" of a page, a role they can choose to >> relinquish at any time. Each page could have multiple maintainers but >> anyone could still edit the page. Some pages might have zero >> maintainers until someone decides to step up. Having a document >> maintainer is just a way for a person to publicly declare, "I'm >> interested in taking an active role in improving and maintaining the >> quality of this document." This would be someone who wants to get >> notified or asked for advice on what's on that page. Nothing more than >> that. They could easily drop out of that role anytime they wanted. > > I think what Steve is talking about is providing an opportunity for people > to better step up to take ownership of docs in a way that doesn't exclude > others. Why would we want to prevent people from feeling responsible for > certain doc pages and being more accessible to folks seeking clarification, > more help, etc? > > Shai > > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From drupal-docs at webchick.net Mon May 26 05:12:08 2008 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:12:08 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> Steve Dondley wrote: > With this in mind, I recommend the following: > > 1) A block down the side to give public recognition to all those who > have contributed to the documentation (maybe sorted by the number of > revisions). > 2) A link at the top of the block to the list of revisions with an > encouragement for user to click there to admire the hard work of > others. > > I think this is a modest change that hopefully won't take a lot of > effort. I think the payoff would be big. I don't feel that my concerns raised in the other thread were adequately addressed, but I was redirected here, so... Your initial proposal still requires code to be written, tested, and integrated into d.o. Who's going to write this code and do the necessary testing? Are you stepping up to take this on? And, unless it has an opt-out/in feature of some sort, people like me are probably going to stop contributing to the handbooks because we're going to get inundated with e-mails from people asking for support on pages we wrote 2 years ago. Are you sure that's what you want? And, if it has an opt-out/in feature, then it'll end up completely inconsistent across the handbook pages on the site and confuse our users, resulting in support requests that we have to divert resources to answering. What's wrong with just having the revisions tab, again? So far, the only complaint I've seen is that anon users can't view it, which is likely done for performance reasons, but you could always start an issue in the webmasters queue to check. -Angie From Greg at GrowingVentureSolutions.com Mon May 26 05:17:44 2008 From: Greg at GrowingVentureSolutions.com (Greg Knaddison - GVS) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:17:44 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252205o40a3ba8drad17984ab712270d@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252149h24f0a5adk82764859dde962a4@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805252203m7d2e35cfx21ec1349311a3392@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252205o40a3ba8drad17984ab712270d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3861c6770805252217p4355b4barb6d5059055ba6633@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Steve Dondley wrote: > The proposal is really just to "be more public about giving credit". > That's all I'm saying. No one should be opposed to that. You say "no one should be opposed" and yet Nancy (78 book pages and hundreds of revisions contributed) and Webchick (55 pages and hundreds of revisions contributed) have concerns about the idea as you presented it. We have http://drupal.org/node/14205 and perhaps that could be highlighted a little more to give people more attention. I once wrote a query and put it in the issue queue or on some email list (this was maybe 2 years ago) that showed the number of book revisions that people had created as a way to give credit for revisions in addition to new pages which could perhaps be added as well. I agree with you that giving highly visible credit for our documentation contributors is a great idea to help inspire more people to do it. I think there are valid reasons not to do it on the page itself. If you (or someone else) wanted to write a "documentation people of the month" and add it to the newsletter I'm sure it would be well received. That is one of many options for the ultimate goal of highlighting the work done by handbook contributors. It's also worth noting that the Wikipedia project works pretty well giving credit on a separate tab. Regards, Greg -- Greg Knaddison Denver, CO | http://knaddison.com World Spanish Tour | http://wanderlusting.org/user/greg From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 05:24:48 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:24:48 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > Steve Dondley wrote: >> With this in mind, I recommend the following: >> >> 1) A block down the side to give public recognition to all those who >> have contributed to the documentation (maybe sorted by the number of >> revisions). >> 2) A link at the top of the block to the list of revisions with an >> encouragement for user to click there to admire the hard work of >> others. >> >> I think this is a modest change that hopefully won't take a lot of >> effort. I think the payoff would be big. > > I don't feel that my concerns raised in the other thread were adequately > addressed, but I was redirected here, so... This is the same thread. We are talking about a completely different proposal, which is to put a block down the side to publicly call attention to those who contributed to a document page. > Your initial proposal still requires code to be written, tested, and > integrated into d.o. Who's going to write this code and do the necessary > testing? Are you stepping up to take this on? That is not addressed in the proposal. I have no idea how this would be accomplished on the site. That would take some research. > > And, unless it has an opt-out/in feature of some sort, people like me > are probably going to stop contributing to the handbooks because we're > going to get inundated with e-mails from people asking for support on > pages we wrote 2 years ago. Are you sure that's what you want? I get unsolicited email all the time from people looking for help. I write what I alway write if I'm too busy "Sorry, love to help, but I can't." Plus, you have to do an analysis: Is it worth it to put up with a couple more emails per week to help the Drupal project get more contributors. I say, hell yes! > And, if it has an opt-out/in feature, then it'll end up completely > inconsistent across the handbook pages on the site and confuse our > users, resulting in support requests that we have to divert resources to > answering. Well, first we have to decided if this opt in/out feature is really necessary. I don't think it is. > What's wrong with just having the revisions tab, again? So far, the only > complaint I've seen is that anon users can't view it, which is likely > done for performance reasons, but you could always start an issue in the > webmasters queue to check. What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on the back? It will build the project. I don't know one person who would prefer to contribute the Drupal project in total obscurity. See my reasons above for why giving people credit for their work is a good thing and will build the project. Let me ask you a direct question: Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. > > -Angie > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From pwolanin at gmail.com Mon May 26 05:26:32 2008 From: pwolanin at gmail.com (Peter Wolanin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:26:32 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition Message-ID: <2247a8a70805252226n43c03178p4536ee759d80b00b@mail.gmail.com> Once D6 hits drupal.org, this page will be more infromative (due to book module fix), and perhaps can be given higher exposure: http://drupal.org/node/14205 -Peter From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 05:30:21 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:30:21 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <3861c6770805252217p4355b4barb6d5059055ba6633@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805251759s849fac3t28207e89c9af51fc@mail.gmail.com> <483A349A.30002@webchick.net> <483A3D92.7060500@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252149h24f0a5adk82764859dde962a4@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805252203m7d2e35cfx21ec1349311a3392@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252205o40a3ba8drad17984ab712270d@mail.gmail.com> <3861c6770805252217p4355b4barb6d5059055ba6633@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252230p7d90d0d8h2a7793f5447d6a1e@mail.gmail.com> > You say "no one should be opposed" and yet Nancy (78 book pages and > hundreds of revisions contributed) and Webchick (55 pages and hundreds > of revisions contributed) have concerns about the idea as you > presented it. Well, I have only received response from one person about the specific proposal to list people on the page itself. Yours is #2. > > We have http://drupal.org/node/14205 and perhaps that could be > highlighted a little more to give people more attention. I once wrote > a query and put it in the issue queue or on some email list (this was > maybe 2 years ago) that showed the number of book revisions that > people had created as a way to give credit for revisions in addition > to new pages which could perhaps be added as well. This would be a step in the right direction. > > I agree with you that giving highly visible credit for our > documentation contributors is a great idea to help inspire more people > to do it. Exactly. I think there are valid reasons not to do it on the page > itself. If you (or someone else) wanted to write a "documentation > people of the month" and add it to the newsletter I'm sure it would be > well received. That is one of many options for the ultimate goal of > highlighting the work done by handbook contributors. I'd prefer it to be automated and built into the system. Just like when you become a module maintainer, getting credit is just built into the system. > > It's also worth noting that the Wikipedia project works pretty well > giving credit on a separate tab. Well, at least in wikipedia, anonymous users can view it. > > Regards, > Greg > > -- > Greg Knaddison > Denver, CO | http://knaddison.com > World Spanish Tour | http://wanderlusting.org/user/greg > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 05:34:54 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:34:54 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <2247a8a70805252226n43c03178p4536ee759d80b00b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805252226n43c03178p4536ee759d80b00b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252234p2effab43wd3ce6f6cf78da0f1@mail.gmail.com> This would be another step in the right direction. Even just a simple link to this page on every documentation page that said: "This page was written by one of these fine volunteers...you can help!" with a link to this contributor's page. And then you could put a link to the revisions page so even anonymous users could see who contributed. It should state clearly: "See who contributed to this page". On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Peter Wolanin wrote: > Once D6 hits drupal.org, this page will be more infromative (due to > book module fix), and perhaps can be given higher exposure: > http://drupal.org/node/14205 > > -Peter > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From nan_wich at bellsouth.net Mon May 26 05:38:39 2008 From: nan_wich at bellsouth.net (Nancy Wichmann) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:38:39 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more publicrecognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Okay, let me, as the #4 or 5 handbook contributor, say my piece. Yes, in the beginning, I was disappointed that my name wasn't attached to the pages. However, as I contributed more and more, I started getting direct emails from people wanting things - for free. Yes, I give free advice, but there has to be a limit. Like most of us, I need money too. Answering those emails eats into my billable time. Looking at someone else's web site means I'm not looking at my paying customer's site. And, like Angie said, some of the pages I write are either for me to remember or are one time things that are intended to help others. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to answer questions on those pages. So, I no longer want credit for the pages I write. I can't afford it. If Lee Hunter (#1 contributor) weighs in, I'll bet he doesn't want it either. NancyDru From drupal-docs at webchick.net Mon May 26 05:43:52 2008 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:43:52 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> Steve Dondley wrote: > What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on > the back? Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification: - A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather than community ownership of *the handbook*. - Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently doesn't exist. - A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation, for easy target practice from people seeking support. - Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't clear or can even possibly be determined. - Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could instead just be writing and improving the docs. > Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more > contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level of credit they receive. However, I can clearly see that it's a motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say. I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though. I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the 'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around individual pages. However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding now. ;) -Angie From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 05:57:58 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:57:58 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252257i51a416b5xe09f92d6a8ddee40@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > Steve Dondley wrote: >> What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on >> the back? > > Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed > over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification: > > - A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather > than community ownership of *the handbook*. > - Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently > doesn't exist. > - A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation, > for easy target practice from people seeking support. > - Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't > clear or can even possibly be determined. > - Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could > instead just be writing and improving the docs. I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it?That is, unless someone wants to bring it to the floor again. > >> Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more >> contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. > > The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for > me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook > contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level > of credit they receive. Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :) However, I can clearly see that it's a > motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating > factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of > time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in > a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say. > I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though. I think the changes I proposed will not require "dumping a whole bunch of time and energy." Just to create a simple block to list the contributors to a document page? Or are you thinking about the whole "maintainer" feature thing which I said I don't really care about and have repeatedly stated as such? I think the amount of work needed to put up a block is minimal. If it can be done in an hour or two, why not do it. Let's say the feature is the deciding factor in getting 2 more contributors. Don't you think that's worth it. > > I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the > list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as > adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the > handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the > 'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around > individual pages. > > However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, > this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding > now. ;) All real progress starts with discussion. Please don't be so dismissive. Someone with some ability to change the code on d.o. will have to get involved at some point. If it can't ever get escalated to that level, we're all just pissing in the wind. > > -Angie > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 05:58:59 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:58:59 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252258ud1f563fxe7eb12d8f93a6a95@mail.gmail.com> > However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, > this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding > now. ;) Would you mind telling me who has the knowledge to do this? > > -Angie > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 06:02:14 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 02:02:14 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more publicrecognition In-Reply-To: References: <36b9121d0805252120me8131b8g2b096c8a3ef4e175@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252302o54c3ac7frf2b15ca2763c9838@mail.gmail.com> I guess it comes down to if you think putting up with a few more unsolicited emails is worth trying something to solicit more contributors. I think on the whole you would gain by having more documentation written for you than having to do it yourself. I would recommend declining to help those who can't pay you. I encounter this myself and unless it's a very quick and easy request, I politely decline the request for help. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Nancy Wichmann wrote: > Okay, let me, as the #4 or 5 handbook contributor, say my piece. > > Yes, in the beginning, I was disappointed that my name wasn't attached to > the pages. However, as I contributed more and more, I started getting > direct emails from people wanting things - for free. > > Yes, I give free advice, but there has to be a limit. Like most of us, I > need money too. Answering those emails eats into my billable time. Looking > at someone else's web site means I'm not looking at my paying customer's > site. > > And, like Angie said, some of the pages I write are either for me to > remember or are one time things that are intended to help others. I'm not > particularly interested in continuing to answer questions on those pages. > > So, I no longer want credit for the pages I write. I can't afford it. If > Lee Hunter (#1 contributor) weighs in, I'll bet he doesn't want it either. > > NancyDru > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From joshua at brauerranch.com Mon May 26 06:03:05 2008 From: joshua at brauerranch.com (Joshua Brauer) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:03:05 -0600 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252234p2effab43wd3ce6f6cf78da0f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805252226n43c03178p4536ee759d80b00b@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252234p2effab43wd3ce6f6cf78da0f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <73060016-439A-4F27-9010-53397139499E@brauerranch.com> I fear this breaks down all too quickly with a community written document and site. Who should get more credit the person who first posted the page, the person who edited it to correct the major error and make it actually usable, the one who added the examples that really bring people to the page, the person who edits the document to conform to the documentation standards, the person who edits the punctuation to make it more readable or the person who edits the run- on sentences from pages? :) In all seriousness it is very hard to really accurately describe who did the "heavy lifting" on many pages, especially those that get a lot of love. And while I'm a bit further down the list than Angie or Nancy I'd also say I don't want to be listed on the top, bottom or side of any page and while I likely would have relished this when I was starting out it simply would generate way too much traffic from folks who I can't possibly respond to and would in the long run perpetuate a feeling that the Drupal community are a bunch of unresponsive folks. Further I fear that even with the ability to turn the attribution off for my account that the number of people editing documents and posting things to see their names appear on many pages would make the signal to noise ratio in the documents such that I would have far less time to spend working in the community. I'm quite happy with the ability of anybody who makes a small effort to view my contributions. Josh On May 25, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > This would be another step in the right direction. Even just a simple > link to this page on every documentation page that said: > > "This page was written by one of these fine volunteers...you can > help!" with a link to this contributor's page. And then you could put > a link to the revisions page so even anonymous users could see who > contributed. It should state clearly: "See who contributed to this > page". > > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Peter Wolanin > wrote: >> Once D6 hits drupal.org, this page will be more infromative (due to >> book module fix), and perhaps can be given higher exposure: >> http://drupal.org/node/14205 >> >> -Peter >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >> > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- > 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: 2427 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/4c61914d/attachment-0001.bin From joshua at brauerranch.com Mon May 26 06:05:23 2008 From: joshua at brauerranch.com (Joshua Brauer) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:05:23 -0600 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252258ud1f563fxe7eb12d8f93a6a95@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252258ud1f563fxe7eb12d8f93a6a95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <521579CF-AF22-4799-A561-F75C5B4807C4@brauerranch.com> Anybody who wishes to can use the profile at http://drupal.org/project/drupalorg_testing to setup a test environment and suggest changes. Though of course this doesn't test the ability of any solution to scale to a site the size of d.o On May 25, 2008, at 11:58 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: >> However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code >> something, >> this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to >> coding >> now. ;) > > Would you mind telling me who has the knowledge to do this? > >> >> -Angie >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >> > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- > 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: 2427 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/fa76e7a4/attachment.bin From s at dondley.com Mon May 26 06:07:32 2008 From: s at dondley.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 02:07:32 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <521579CF-AF22-4799-A561-F75C5B4807C4@brauerranch.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252258ud1f563fxe7eb12d8f93a6a95@mail.gmail.com> <521579CF-AF22-4799-A561-F75C5B4807C4@brauerranch.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252307tc5da7e2wcad0936af6869ef1@mail.gmail.com> > Anybody who wishes to can use the profile at > http://drupal.org/project/drupalorg_testing > > to setup a test environment and suggest changes. Though of course this > doesn't test the ability of any solution to scale to a site the size of d.o OK, cool. > > On May 25, 2008, at 11:58 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > >>> However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, >>> this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding >>> now. ;) >> >> Would you mind telling me who has the knowledge to do this? >> >>> >>> -Angie >>> -- >>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From s at dondley.com Mon May 26 06:21:50 2008 From: s at dondley.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 02:21:50 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <73060016-439A-4F27-9010-53397139499E@brauerranch.com> References: <2247a8a70805252226n43c03178p4536ee759d80b00b@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805252234p2effab43wd3ce6f6cf78da0f1@mail.gmail.com> <73060016-439A-4F27-9010-53397139499E@brauerranch.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805252321w731e7c21l746ed1772ebc44d0@mail.gmail.com> You are the 3rd person who has cited a concern for more unsolicited help as a reason to not be listed in a more public way. Perhaps a setting in your profile which would explicitly exclude you from the contributions list could be made. One metric is to list the number of changes a person has made. But I think it's more important just to get the name up there, regardless of how small the contribution. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Joshua Brauer wrote: > I fear this breaks down all too quickly with a community written document > and site. Who should get more credit the person who first posted the page, > the person who edited it to correct the major error and make it actually > usable, the one who added the examples that really bring people to the page, > the person who edits the document to conform to the documentation standards, > the person who edits the punctuation to make it more readable or the person > who edits the run-on sentences from pages? :) > > In all seriousness it is very hard to really accurately describe who did the > "heavy lifting" on many pages, especially those that get a lot of love. > > And while I'm a bit further down the list than Angie or Nancy I'd also say I > don't want to be listed on the top, bottom or side of any page and while I > likely would have relished this when I was starting out it simply would > generate way too much traffic from folks who I can't possibly respond to and > would in the long run perpetuate a feeling that the Drupal community are a > bunch of unresponsive folks. Further I fear that even with the ability to > turn the attribution off for my account that the number of people editing > documents and posting things to see their names appear on many pages would > make the signal to noise ratio in the documents such that I would have far > less time to spend working in the community. I'm quite happy with the > ability of anybody who makes a small effort to view my contributions. > > Josh > > On May 25, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > >> This would be another step in the right direction. Even just a simple >> link to this page on every documentation page that said: >> >> "This page was written by one of these fine volunteers...you can >> help!" with a link to this contributor's page. And then you could put >> a link to the revisions page so even anonymous users could see who >> contributed. It should state clearly: "See who contributed to this >> page". >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Peter Wolanin wrote: >>> >>> Once D6 hits drupal.org, this page will be more infromative (due to >>> book module fix), and perhaps can be given higher exposure: >>> http://drupal.org/node/14205 >>> >>> -Peter >>> -- >>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. >> http://prometheuslabor.com >> 413-572-1300 >> >> Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet >> http://communicateordie.com >> -- >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From catch56 at googlemail.com Mon May 26 09:16:51 2008 From: catch56 at googlemail.com (catch) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:16:51 +0100 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252307tc5da7e2wcad0936af6869ef1@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252258ud1f563fxe7eb12d8f93a6a95@mail.gmail.com> <521579CF-AF22-4799-A561-F75C5B4807C4@brauerranch.com> <36b9121d0805252307tc5da7e2wcad0936af6869ef1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I haven't done a great deal of work on the handbook, but nearly all my edits are fixing typos and more recently 'archiving' old and out of date pages. In both of those cases I really, really don't want my username listed on the page next to those pages. Additionally, sometimes I'll see a page that looks completely wrong to me, but then I'll notice a greggles or a webchick attached to the revisions tab - and then realise they were only moving it's location or fixing a typo. So I agree this opens up people to a lot of e-mail support, and making pages look more of less authoritative simply due to who's edited it or how many different people have. Having said all that, +1 to making the documentation contributors list more prominent. There's the 'most active developers' block on http://drupal.org/cvs which is fun to look at sometimes - probably wouldn't be that hard to have a 'documentation commit messages' page as well (maybe this already exists somewhere as recent changes?). Another thing with this - the cvs metrics that greggles does for core releases are always interesting to see - both who's contributing, and the distribution of patches. Individual cvs commit messages don't provide this so well (and never exactly match who contributed to a patch, and hardly ever the person who might have typed up the initial bug report) - but at an aggregate level they're good for seeing trends in the project. So I'm not so interested in attribution for individual pages (I guess people who really want that post documentation planet rather than in the handbook), but I am quite interested in getting some statistical data on documentation contributions in general. If you're reading this conversation, and haven't seen Jos?'s post on the Drupal.org redesign group [1], then this'd probably be worth looking at together with that. It's the sort of thing that'd be easier to implement on a separate subdomain. Nat 1. http://groups.drupal.org/node/10223 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/65d3b66e/attachment.htm From freso.dk at gmail.com Mon May 26 11:22:34 2008 From: freso.dk at gmail.com (Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:22:34 +0200 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483A9D7A.8000001@gmail.com> Steve Dondley skrev: >Someone reverted some documentation I submitted at >http://drupal.org/node/262422 which removed a credit attributed to >myself and others for writing the documentation. I specifically placed >the credit in there to point out a bad oversight on the part of d.o. >which is that documentation writers receive little to no public >recognition for their work. For what it's worth, I somehow feel this falls into the "Don?t allow names in source files ? this creates unnecessary sense of ownership of a piece of code. Your version control system should keep track of who worked on it for credit/copyright reasons." category mentioned in http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE . Make the "documentation credits" page more prominent instead, make a "documenter of the month" or something instead. Don't write the credits directly to the page. Angie and Nancy (and others) have already provided plenty of reasons why not to. -- Sincerely, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/5ca38a41/attachment.pgp From freso.dk at gmail.com Mon May 26 11:36:44 2008 From: freso.dk at gmail.com (Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:36:44 +0200 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805252257i51a416b5xe09f92d6a8ddee40@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252257i51a416b5xe09f92d6a8ddee40@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483AA0CC.8090403@gmail.com> Steve Dondley skrev: >On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron wrote: >>Steve Dondley wrote: >>>What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on >>>the back? >>Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed >>over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification: >> >>- A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather >>than community ownership of *the handbook*. >>- Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently >>doesn't exist. >>- A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation, >>for easy target practice from people seeking support. >>- Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't >>clear or can even possibly be determined. >>- Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could >>instead just be writing and improving the docs. > >I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't >care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it? [...] As I read it, all the above concerns apply just as well to your original proposal (and was meant as comments to your original proposal as well, if I'm not much mistaken) as they did/do to you "maintainer proposal". Stop using your dismissal of the "maintainer proposal" as an excuse to easily dismiss these (IMHO) valid points/issues. >>>Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more >>>contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. >>The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for >>me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook >>contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level >>of credit they receive. > >Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling >away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever >found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :) Even if she wasn't given credit, she was still obviously found. Why was she found? Probably because she was active. She isn't given credit in the code, she isn't given credit in the documentation (well, what I've found). She is given credit in the edit history (CVS messages, revisions) and as a participant of discussions (mailing list, IRC, issue queue) though, just as you are. And this was good enough for them to find her. (Sorry for speaking on your behalf, Angie, but I was already answering his mail, so I couldn't skip this bit. :p) >>However, I can clearly see that it's a >>motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating >>factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of >>time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in >>a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say. >>I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though. > >I think the changes I proposed will not require "dumping a whole bunch >of time and energy." Just to create a simple block to list the >contributors to a document page? [...] It will require PHP/SQL to be written by coders and reviewed by Security Team and then implemented by d.o webmasters on d.o. My guess would be that this will take more than "an hour or two". >>I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the >>list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as >>adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the >>handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the >>'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around >>individual pages. >> >>However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, >>this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding >>now. ;) > >All real progress starts with discussion. Please don't be so dismissive. See my first comments, please? :) -- Sincerely, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/4d295dd6/attachment-0001.pgp From shai at content2zero.com Mon May 26 13:26:11 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:26:11 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483AA0CC.8090403@gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252257i51a416b5xe09f92d6a8ddee40@mail.gmail.com> <483AA0CC.8090403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805260626p5b4b022fkd73253b1c21908b2@mail.gmail.com> Here is a summary of *alternatives* to Steve D's proposal that address some of his concerns, but in different ways: 1. @greggles (Greg)- give better visibility to already existing book contributors page. 2. @greggles (Greg)- add another query to the book contributions page that would list the number of contributions. Greg reports having written a version of that query two years ago. 3. @greggles (Greg)- try to get a column going in the newsletter, "documenter of the month." 4. @catch (Nat)- create a documenters commit block similar to what we have for developers on http://drupal.org/cvs 5. @angie (webchick)- adding badges to the names of folks who have contributed to the handbook (presumably on people's user page). 6. @angie (webchick)- Submit request to infrastructure to allow revisions tab visibility for anonymous users Many, if not all, of these suggestions have been +1 by others in the thread. This is a long thread. Did I miss any others? @steve -- given the lack of support for the specifics of your proposal in this thread, do you see using the action list above as a positive framework for beginning to address your concerns, concerns which I believe others share? Shai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/d710a4d1/attachment.htm From shellmultimedia at gmail.com Mon May 26 13:41:58 2008 From: shellmultimedia at gmail.com (Michelle Cox) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 08:41:58 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ccde8ac0805260641r5a0447eeof35061db1a2b476c@mail.gmail.com> I'm just replying in general to the thread... In a hotel about to leave so no time for a long response. But I wanted to say that I always hated having my pages be anonymous. I don't do much editing of others' and when I do write a page it tends to take a lot of work and not having my name on it is discouraging. I saw all the arguments in the thread and wondered if anyone thought of simply having unlinked names? That would make it harder for random support emails while still giving credit. Michelle On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Steve Dondley wrote: > Someone reverted some documentation I submitted at > http://drupal.org/node/262422 which removed a credit attributed to > myself and others for writing the documentation. I specifically placed > the credit in there to point out a bad oversight on the part of d.o. > which is that documentation writers receive little to no public > recognition for their work. > > Giving public recognition to contributors will work to move people out > of the "user" category and into the "contributor" column for a few > reasons: > > 1) It will cater to people's ego (yup, we all got 'em) to see their > names in lights. > 3) Most contributors seek karma. The only way to obtain karma is to give > credit. > 4) They might feel not sharing their talents while others freely share > theirs. > 5) It reminds them that there are real people behind all the work at > d.o. and that it doesn't just magically appear for them. > > Currently, you have to be a registered user and logged into view the > revisions. Even when you are logged in, the revisions tab is barely > clicked and only by those actually maintaining the documents. > > With this in mind, I recommend the following: > > 1) A block down the side to give public recognition to all those who > have contributed to the documentation (maybe sorted by the number of > revisions). > 2) A link at the top of the block to the list of revisions with an > encouragement for user to click there to admire the hard work of > others. > > I think this is a modest change that hopefully won't take a lot of > effort. I think the payoff would be big. > > Thanks. > > > > -- > Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. > http://prometheuslabor.com > 413-572-1300 > > Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet > http://communicateordie.com > -- > 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/20080526/63710f7b/attachment.htm From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 14:09:53 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:09:53 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805260626p5b4b022fkd73253b1c21908b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252257i51a416b5xe09f92d6a8ddee40@mail.gmail.com> <483AA0CC.8090403@gmail.com> <9f68efb70805260626p5b4b022fkd73253b1c21908b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805260709q775f21e6y855c2b45feba4cdf@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > Here is a summary of alternatives to Steve D's proposal that address some of > his concerns, but in different ways: > > @greggles (Greg) - give better visibility to already existing book > contributors page. > @greggles (Greg) - add another query to the book contributions page that > would list the number of contributions. Greg reports having written a > version of that query two years ago. > @greggles (Greg)- try to get a column going in the newsletter, "documenter > of the month." > @catch (Nat) - create a documenters commit block similar to what we have for > developers on http://drupal.org/cvs > @angie (webchick) - adding badges to the names of folks who have contributed > to the handbook (presumably on people's user page). > @angie (webchick) - Submit request to infrastructure to allow revisions tab > visibility for anonymous users > > Many, if not all, of these suggestions have been +1 by others in the thread. > > This is a long thread. Did I miss any others? Yeah, a few of mine which also offered alternatives like a static block. I never stated I was wedded to one particular idea, just to the fact that document contributors get more public recognition. > > @steve -- given the lack of support for the specifics of your proposal in > this thread, do you see using the action list above as a positive framework > for beginning to address your concerns, concerns which I believe others > share? Yes, definitely. > > Shai > > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From s at dondley.com Mon May 26 14:24:43 2008 From: s at dondley.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:24:43 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483AA0CC.8090403@gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252257i51a416b5xe09f92d6a8ddee40@mail.gmail.com> <483AA0CC.8090403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805260724l4ab468cft541f4e6e25099e84@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen wrote: > Steve Dondley skrev: >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron >> wrote: >>> >>> Steve Dondley wrote: >>>> >>>> What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on >>>> the back? >>> >>> Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed >>> over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification: >>> >>> - A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather >>> than community ownership of *the handbook*. >>> - Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently >>> doesn't exist. >>> - A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation, >>> for easy target practice from people seeking support. >>> - Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't >>> clear or can even possibly be determined. >>> - Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could >>> instead just be writing and improving the docs. >> >> I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't >> care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it? [...] > > As I read it, all the above concerns apply just as well to your original > proposal (and was meant as comments to your original proposal as well, if > I'm not much mistaken) as they did/do to you "maintainer proposal". Stop > using your dismissal of the "maintainer proposal" as an excuse to easily > dismiss these (IMHO) valid points/issues. I think you are mistaken. To be sure, please state exactly which points from the 2nd proposal for maintainers/owners (now withdrawn), apply to the first, which is to have a more easily accessible, more public list of page contributors. > >>>> Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more >>>> contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. >>> >>> The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for >>> me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook >>> contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level >>> of credit they receive. >> >> Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling >> away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever >> found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :) > > Even if she wasn't given credit, she was still obviously found. Why was she > found? Probably because she was active. She isn't given credit in the code, > she isn't given credit in the documentation (well, what I've found). She is > given credit in the edit history (CVS messages, revisions) and as a > participant of discussions (mailing list, IRC, issue queue) though, just as > you are. And this was good enough for them to find her. (Sorry for speaking > on your behalf, Angie, but I was already answering his mail, so I couldn't > skip this bit. :p) Right, we agree, credit is good. It's the grease that fuels the open source world. You can't have too much of a good thing. > >>> However, I can clearly see that it's a >>> motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating >>> factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of >>> time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in >>> a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say. >>> I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though. >> >> I think the changes I proposed will not require "dumping a whole bunch >> of time and energy." Just to create a simple block to list the >> contributors to a document page? [...] > > It will require PHP/SQL to be written by coders and reviewed by Security > Team and then implemented by d.o webmasters on d.o. My guess would be that > this will take more than "an hour or two". OK, please enlighten me. About how long do you think it would take? Again, let me be more specific about the requirements: 1) Will generate a single block on each page (hopefully could be cached). 2) Would list all contributors to the existing document page. Seems like one simple query would generate the block. I don't see any security risks. If people are adamant about not being seen in these lists, they could uncheck a box in the user profile. Are we on the same page here as far as requirements go? > >>> I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the >>> list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as >>> adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the >>> handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the >>> 'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around >>> individual pages. >>> >>> However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, >>> this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding >>> now. ;) >> >> All real progress starts with discussion. Please don't be so dismissive. > > See my first comments, please? :) > > -- > Sincerely, > Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sdondley at gmail.com Mon May 26 15:13:01 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:13:01 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> Based on the feedback so far, allow me modify the original proposal and put this on the table: 1) A new block on each document page is should be visible. 2) The intent of the block is to recruit more document contributors (which has been the intent behind the original proposal as well). 3) The block should be visible to all users, anonymous or not. 4) The block will be titled "Thanks to Our Document Contributors!" 5) The content of the block will say: To see who pitched in with this page, click here." To find out how you can help, "click here". 6) The first "click here" link will take people to a prettier version of the "revisions" page which lists each person's id (we can debate whether or not it links to the person's id) and lists the revisions they have made. 7) At the top of this list of contributor's we have a big ad with the appeal: "This page and all the documentation on Drupal.org is the result of the work from Drupal contributors. Click here to learn how you can join us." So the modified proposal changes very little to upset the status quo. The only changes are: a) You won't have to be logged in to view who contributed to a document page. b) It creates a new block on each page thanking those who helped and encouraging others to help. c) It requires some code to generate a page listing the contributor's and the revisions they committed to the page. The only sticky issue I see at this point is that some people may want to post their work anonymously because now the list would be accessible to anonymous users. I could go either way on this but because it requires more work, -1 to the idea of allowing people to remove themselves from the list. Pluse, we don't make special allowance for module maintainer to hide themselves from anonymous views. To those who fear extra unsolicited emails, I recommend adopting the following policy: 1) Politely decline to help the person and direct them to the issues queue where they can ask their support question. I will volunteer to create the block and the new page if a technical person could advise on me on scalability issues. From freso.dk at gmail.com Mon May 26 15:28:36 2008 From: freso.dk at gmail.com (Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 17:28:36 +0200 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805260724l4ab468cft541f4e6e25099e84@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <483A46A8.9070608@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252224t2547cc0ak5dd9985401e10927@mail.gmail.com> <483A4E18.7030309@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805252257i51a416b5xe09f92d6a8ddee40@mail.gmail.com> <483AA0CC.8090403@gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260724l4ab468cft541f4e6e25099e84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483AD724.10106@gmail.com> Steve Dondley skrev: >On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen > wrote: >>Steve Dondley skrev: >>>On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron >>>wrote: >>>>Steve Dondley wrote: >>>>>What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on >>>>>the back? >>>>Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed >>>>over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification: >>>> >>>>- A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather >>>>than community ownership of *the handbook*. >>>>- Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently >>>>doesn't exist. >>>>- A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation, >>>>for easy target practice from people seeking support. >>>>- Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't >>>>clear or can even possibly be determined. >>>>- Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could >>>>instead just be writing and improving the docs. >>>I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't >>>care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it? [...] >>As I read it, all the above concerns apply just as well to your original >>proposal (and was meant as comments to your original proposal as well, if >>I'm not much mistaken) as they did/do to you "maintainer proposal". Stop >>using your dismissal of the "maintainer proposal" as an excuse to easily >>dismiss these (IMHO) valid points/issues. > >I think you are mistaken. To be sure, please state exactly which >points from the 2nd proposal for maintainers/owners (now withdrawn), >apply to the first, which is to have a more easily accessible, more >public list of page contributors. Wha'? I didn't say any of the points from the 2nd proposals applied to your original one - I stated that all of Angie's concerns apply to both! And I could point them out one by one, but this would just repeat her list. (Okay, perhaps with the exception of "Additional administrative overhead", but the ownership issues could get messy as well. I suggest you take a look at http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE which I referenced in another, earlier reply.) >>>>>Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more >>>>>contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. >>>>The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for >>>>me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook >>>>contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level >>>>of credit they receive. >>>Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling >>>away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever >>>found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :) >>Even if she wasn't given credit, she was still obviously found. Why was she >>found? Probably because she was active. She isn't given credit in the code, >>she isn't given credit in the documentation (well, what I've found). She is >>given credit in the edit history (CVS messages, revisions) and as a >>participant of discussions (mailing list, IRC, issue queue) though, just as >>you are. And this was good enough for them to find her. (Sorry for speaking >>on your behalf, Angie, but I was already answering his mail, so I couldn't >>skip this bit. :p) > >Right, we agree, credit is good. It's the grease that fuels the open >source world. You can't have too much of a good thing. Well, we agree (no comma) credit is good. We don't agree that shoving the credits in the face of everyone who looks at things touched by anyone is a good idea though. Apart from Angie's objections above, I still think "Don?t allow names in source files ? this creates unnecessary sense of ownership of a piece of code. Your version control system should keep track of who worked on it for credit/copyright reasons." applies here - "source files" being the documentation pages, "version control system" being the revisioning system. Go watch http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE now, if you haven't already. (Or Google the title, which should let you read a summary of the talk.) ps. Please trim your replies, removing the bits you aren't replying to. -- Sincerely, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/937b6f11/attachment.pgp From lee.hunter at hum.com Mon May 26 15:29:47 2008 From: lee.hunter at hum.com (Lee Hunter) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:29:47 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <197f52f50805260829s4017cc51t3b4c91f038d55b26@mail.gmail.com> The majority of my contributions have been relatively minor copy edits. Although it's important that copyediting gets done, I definitely wouldn't want to be automatically presented as an author if all I did was change "it's" to "its". Lee On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Steve Dondley wrote: > > The only sticky issue I see at this point is that some people may want > to post their work anonymously because now the list would be > accessible to anonymous users. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/ed6d045c/attachment.htm From pwolanin at gmail.com Mon May 26 16:51:11 2008 From: pwolanin at gmail.com (Peter Wolanin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:51:11 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition Message-ID: <2247a8a70805260951q2b489f17qb3a3f8c9fbbd7cb6@mail.gmail.com> Nat, maybe you mean this page: http://drupal.org/handbook/updates It is a rolling list of all updates. I just found one page that needed some more editing this way. Note that this page *is* available to anonymous users, so it's another, already-existing, mechanism to see who's active in contributing to documentation but that could potentially be made more prominent. Note that the link for this is already in the "Documentation team links" block that you may optionally enable in your account. -Peter > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: catch > To: "A list for documentation writers" > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:16:51 +0100 > Subject: Re: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition > I haven't done a great deal of work on the handbook, but nearly all my edits are fixing typos and more recently 'archiving' old and out of date pages. In both of those cases I really, really don't want my username listed on the page next to those pages. > > Additionally, sometimes I'll see a page that looks completely wrong to me, but then I'll notice a greggles or a webchick attached to the revisions tab - and then realise they were only moving it's location or fixing a typo. So I agree this opens up people to a lot of e-mail support, and making pages look more of less authoritative simply due to who's edited it or how many different people have. > > Having said all that, +1 to making the documentation contributors list more prominent. There's the 'most active developers' block on http://drupal.org/cvs which is fun to look at sometimes - probably wouldn't be that hard to have a 'documentation commit messages' page as well (maybe this already exists somewhere as recent changes?). > > Another thing with this - the cvs metrics that greggles does for core releases are always interesting to see - both who's contributing, and the distribution of patches. Individual cvs commit messages don't provide this so well (and never exactly match who contributed to a patch, and hardly ever the person who might have typed up the initial bug report) - but at an aggregate level they're good for seeing trends in the project. So I'm not so interested in attribution for individual pages (I guess people who really want that post documentation planet rather than in the handbook), but I am quite interested in getting some statistical data on documentation contributions in general. > > If you're reading this conversation, and haven't seen Jos?'s post on the Drupal.org redesign group [1], then this'd probably be worth looking at together with that. It's the sort of thing that'd be easier to implement on a separate subdomain. > > Nat > > 1. http://groups.drupal.org/node/10223 > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen" > To: A list for documentation writers > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:22:34 +0200 > Subject: Re: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition > Steve Dondley skrev: >> >> Someone reverted some documentation I submitted at >> http://drupal.org/node/262422 which removed a credit attributed to >> myself and others for writing the documentation. I specifically placed >> the credit in there to point out a bad oversight on the part of d.o. >> which is that documentation writers receive little to no public >> recognition for their work. > > > > For what it's worth, I somehow feel this falls into the "Don't allow names in source files ? this creates unnecessary sense of ownership of a piece of code. Your version control system should keep track of who worked on it for credit/copyright reasons." category mentioned in http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE . > > Make the "documentation credits" page more prominent instead, make a "documenter of the month" or something instead. Don't write the credits directly to the page. Angie and Nancy (and others) have already provided plenty of reasons why not to. > > -- > Sincerely, > Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen" > To: A list for documentation writers > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:36:44 +0200 > Subject: Re: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition > Steve Dondley skrev: >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron wrote: >>> >>> Steve Dondley wrote: >>>> >>>> What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on >>>> the back? >>> >>> Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed >>> over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification: >>> >>> - A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather >>> than community ownership of *the handbook*. >>> - Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently >>> doesn't exist. >>> - A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation, >>> for easy target practice from people seeking support. >>> - Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't >>> clear or can even possibly be determined. >>> - Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could >>> instead just be writing and improving the docs. >> >> I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't >> care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it? [...] > > As I read it, all the above concerns apply just as well to your original proposal (and was meant as comments to your original proposal as well, if I'm not much mistaken) as they did/do to you "maintainer proposal". Stop using your dismissal of the "maintainer proposal" as an excuse to easily dismiss these (IMHO) valid points/issues. > >>>> Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more >>>> contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. >>> >>> The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for >>> me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook >>> contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level >>> of credit they receive. >> >> Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling >> away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever >> found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :) > > Even if she wasn't given credit, she was still obviously found. Why was she found? Probably because she was active. She isn't given credit in the code, she isn't given credit in the documentation (well, what I've found). She is given credit in the edit history (CVS messages, revisions) and as a participant of discussions (mailing list, IRC, issue queue) though, just as you are. And this was good enough for them to find her. (Sorry for speaking on your behalf, Angie, but I was already answering his mail, so I couldn't skip this bit. :p) > >>> However, I can clearly see that it's a >>> motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating >>> factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of >>> time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in >>> a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say. >>> I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though. >> >> I think the changes I proposed will not require "dumping a whole bunch >> of time and energy." Just to create a simple block to list the >> contributors to a document page? [...] > > It will require PHP/SQL to be written by coders and reviewed by Security Team and then implemented by d.o webmasters on d.o. My guess would be that this will take more than "an hour or two". > >>> I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the >>> list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as >>> adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the >>> handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the >>> 'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around >>> individual pages. >>> >>> However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, >>> this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding >>> now. ;) >> >> All real progress starts with discussion. Please don't be so dismissive. > > See my first comments, please? :) > > -- > Sincerely, > Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen > > > _______________________________________________ > documentation mailing list > documentation at drupal.org > http://lists.drupal.org/listinfo/documentation > > From pwolanin at gmail.com Mon May 26 17:10:56 2008 From: pwolanin at gmail.com (Peter Wolanin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:10:56 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition Message-ID: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of handbook pages that will be spidered. Can we just have a link on the page that says something like "Login or register to see who contributed to this page"? We'd need a little hook_link implementation or some code in node-book.tpl.php to generate some links in a prominent place like exist for comments: http://drupal.org/user/register?destination=node/262872/revisions -Peter From sean at practicalweb.co.uk Mon May 26 20:13:51 2008 From: sean at practicalweb.co.uk (Sean Burlington) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:13:51 +0100 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483B19FF.5020305@practicalweb.co.uk> Steve Dondley wrote: > Based on the feedback so far, allow me modify the original proposal > and put this on the table: > > 1) A new block on each document page is should be visible. > 2) The intent of the block is to recruit more document contributors > (which has been the intent behind the original proposal as well). > 3) The block should be visible to all users, anonymous or not. > 4) The block will be titled "Thanks to Our Document Contributors!" > 5) The content of the block will say: > Something like that sounds good to me. Also can the original author of a page remain listed as the author after a member of the documentation team has edited it? http://drupal.org/node/339 "If you can no longer edit a handbook page that you created, it was probably updated by a documentation maintainer. Presently, the most recent editor is logged as the author." This seems like a bug to me (but I can't find an issue for it). Another place users are credited is the user page - I see this as a prominent page when getting new work as a switched on client is likely to check it. But it doesn't list documentation contributions in a useful way. This page doesn't list doc contributions at all. http://drupal.org/user/142969 and this page http://drupal.org/user/142969/track makes it look as if I haven't written any doc pages ... (I was the original author of http://drupal.org/node/213374 - ironically I get way more credit for a comment on that page) -- Sean Burlington www.practicalweb.co.uk From catch56 at googlemail.com Mon May 26 21:12:13 2008 From: catch56 at googlemail.com (catch) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:12:13 +0100 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin wrote: > Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better > talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability > problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of > handbook pages that will be spidered. If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, couldn't place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! Nat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080526/e6c4ae30/attachment.htm From drupal at rocktreesky.com Mon May 26 23:07:14 2008 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:07:14 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483B19FF.5020305@practicalweb.co.uk> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> <483B19FF.5020305@practicalweb.co.uk> Message-ID: <7405E6B8-9D26-424E-99BC-BF2DBA8DF2FC@rocktreesky.com> On May 26, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Sean Burlington wrote: > > > Also can the original author of a page remain listed as the author > after > a member of the documentation team has edited it? > > http://drupal.org/node/339 > > "If you can no longer edit a handbook page that you created, it was > probably updated by a documentation maintainer. Presently, the most > recent editor is logged as the author." > > This seems like a bug to me (but I can't find an issue for it). > Yes, it is a "bug" that was considered a feature in D5. If a doc team member edits a page ownership passes to them but if a site admin does, it won't pass ownership over because site admins have rights to the author info on pages. This has been changed in D6 book module so as soon as d.o upgrades to 6 this will stop happening. - Addi From pwolanin at gmail.com Tue May 27 00:33:43 2008 From: pwolanin at gmail.com (Peter Wolanin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 20:33:43 -0400 Subject: [documentation] move PHP from nodes to module Message-ID: <2247a8a70805261733o45d7c16ema6c154fa79505f77@mail.gmail.com> somewhat related to the thread about doc contribution credit, I started an issue here: http://drupal.org/node/263028 The goal being to see if we can move most or all of the code from PHP-format nodes into module code. -Peter From dmr37 at cornell.edu Tue May 27 04:28:55 2008 From: dmr37 at cornell.edu (David Rothstein) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 00:28:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3569.69.202.93.190.1211862535.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> On Mon, May 26, 2008 11:13 am, Steve Dondley wrote: > Based on the feedback so far, allow me modify the original proposal > and put this on the table: > > 1) A new block on each document page is should be visible. > 2) The intent of the block is to recruit more document contributors > (which has been the intent behind the original proposal as well). > ... As someone who is still relatively new, I just wanted to say that I think Steve's idea is great and would probably be very effective at encouraging more people to contribute to documentation (and other parts of Drupal too). I don't think it's so much about giving contributors better credit (although that's not a bad idea for its own sake), but it's really more about helping new people *visualize* themselves as members of the community before they actually join it. To be more specific, the individual documentation pages look a little impersonal right now. How do new people, visiting one of these pages, even know that they are encouraged to contribute? For all they know, these pages are written by a special committee of people who have passed a test or have been elected to a certain position... and thus even if they're interested in contributing, they might feel unwelcome or out of place in doing so. Granted, there is information elsewhere on drupal.org that explains the way things work, but Steve's idea would directly encourage people to contribute *at the moment when such encouragement would be most effective*. It would humanize the page and show new users that a range of different types of contributions (and contributors) are welcome. Please consider me willing to put some time into making this happen if there's any way I can help. --David Rothstein From dibyanlp at yahoo.com Tue May 27 05:14:28 2008 From: dibyanlp at yahoo.com (Dibya) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [documentation] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805260724l4ab468cft541f4e6e25099e84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <625108.93950.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> unsubscribe Steve Dondley wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen wrote: > Steve Dondley skrev: >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron >> wrote: >>> >>> Steve Dondley wrote: >>>> >>>> What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on >>>> the back? >>> >>> Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed >>> over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification: >>> >>> - A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather >>> than community ownership of *the handbook*. >>> - Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently >>> doesn't exist. >>> - A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation, >>> for easy target practice from people seeking support. >>> - Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't >>> clear or can even possibly be determined. >>> - Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could >>> instead just be writing and improving the docs. >> >> I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't >> care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it? [...] > > As I read it, all the above concerns apply just as well to your original > proposal (and was meant as comments to your original proposal as well, if > I'm not much mistaken) as they did/do to you "maintainer proposal". Stop > using your dismissal of the "maintainer proposal" as an excuse to easily > dismiss these (IMHO) valid points/issues. I think you are mistaken. To be sure, please state exactly which points from the 2nd proposal for maintainers/owners (now withdrawn), apply to the first, which is to have a more easily accessible, more public list of page contributors. > >>>> Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more >>>> contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about. >>> >>> The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for >>> me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook >>> contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level >>> of credit they receive. >> >> Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling >> away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever >> found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :) > > Even if she wasn't given credit, she was still obviously found. Why was she > found? Probably because she was active. She isn't given credit in the code, > she isn't given credit in the documentation (well, what I've found). She is > given credit in the edit history (CVS messages, revisions) and as a > participant of discussions (mailing list, IRC, issue queue) though, just as > you are. And this was good enough for them to find her. (Sorry for speaking > on your behalf, Angie, but I was already answering his mail, so I couldn't > skip this bit. :p) Right, we agree, credit is good. It's the grease that fuels the open source world. You can't have too much of a good thing. > >>> However, I can clearly see that it's a >>> motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating >>> factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of >>> time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in >>> a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say. >>> I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though. >> >> I think the changes I proposed will not require "dumping a whole bunch >> of time and energy." Just to create a simple block to list the >> contributors to a document page? [...] > > It will require PHP/SQL to be written by coders and reviewed by Security > Team and then implemented by d.o webmasters on d.o. My guess would be that > this will take more than "an hour or two". OK, please enlighten me. About how long do you think it would take? Again, let me be more specific about the requirements: 1) Will generate a single block on each page (hopefully could be cached). 2) Would list all contributors to the existing document page. Seems like one simple query would generate the block. I don't see any security risks. If people are adamant about not being seen in these lists, they could uncheck a box in the user profile. Are we on the same page here as far as requirements go? > >>> I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the >>> list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as >>> adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the >>> handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the >>> 'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around >>> individual pages. >>> >>> However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something, >>> this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding >>> now. ;) >> >> All real progress starts with discussion. Please don't be so dismissive. > > See my first comments, please? :) > > -- > Sincerely, > Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen > > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com -- 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/20080526/f990a031/attachment.htm From nesrekaradag at hotmail.co.uk Tue May 27 09:01:34 2008 From: nesrekaradag at hotmail.co.uk (Nesre Karadag) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:01:34 +0100 Subject: [documentation] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <625108.93950.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <36b9121d0805260724l4ab468cft541f4e6e25099e84@mail.gmail.com> <625108.93950.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: unsubscribe Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:14:28 -0700From: dibyanlp at yahoo.comTo: documentation at drupal.orgSubject: [documentation] Unsubscribe unsubscribe Steve Dondley wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesenwrote:> Steve Dondley skrev:>>>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron >> wrote:>>>>>> Steve Dondley wrote:>>>>>>>> What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on>>>> the back?>>>>>> Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed>>> over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification:>>>>>> - A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather>>> than community ownership of *the handbook*.>>> - Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently>>> doesn't exist.>>> - A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation,>>> for easy target practice from people seeking support.>>> - Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't>>> clear or can even possibly be determined.>>> - Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could>>> instead just be writing and improving the docs.>>>> I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't>> care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it? [...]>> As I read it, all the above concerns apply just as well to your original> proposal (and was meant as comments to your original proposal as well, if> I'm not much mistaken) as they did/do to you "maintainer proposal". Stop> using your dismissal of the "maintainer proposal" as an excuse to easily> dismiss these (IMHO) valid points/issues.I think you are mistaken. To be sure, please state exactly whichpoints from the 2nd proposal for maintainers/owners (now withdrawn),apply to the first, which is to have a more easily accessible, morepublic list of page contributors.>>>>> Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more>>>> contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about.>>>>>> The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for>>> me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook>>> contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level>>> of credit they receive.>>>> Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling>> away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever>> found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :)>> Even if she wasn't given credit, she was still obviously found. Why was she> found? Probably because she was active. She isn't given credit in the code,> she isn't given credit in the documentation (well, what I've found). She is> given credit in the edit history (CVS messages, revisions) and as a> participant of discussions (mailing list, IRC, issue queue) though, just as> you are. And this was good enough for them to find her. (Sorry for speaking> on your behalf, Angie, but I was already answering his mail, so I couldn't> skip this bit. :p)Right, we agree, credit is good. It's the grease that fuels the opensource world. You can't have too much of a good thing.>>>> However, I can clearly see that it's a>>> motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating>>> factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of>>> time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in>>> a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say.>>> I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though.>>>> I think the changes I proposed will not require "dumping a whole bunch>> of time and energy." Just to create a simple block to list the>> contributors to a document page? [...]>> It will require PHP/SQL to be written by coders and reviewed by Security> Team and then implemented by d.o webmasters on d.o. My guess would be that> this will take more than "an hour or two".OK, please enlighten me. About how long do you think it would take?Again, let me be more specific about the requirements:1) Will generate a single block on each page (hopefully could be cached).2) Would list all contributors to the existing document page.Seems like one simple query would generate the block. I don't see anysecurity risks.If people are adamant about not being seen in these lists, they coulduncheck a box in the user profile.Are we on the same page here as far as requirements go?>>>> I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the>>> list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as>>> adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the>>> handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the>>> 'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around>>> individual pages.>>>>>> However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something,>>> this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding>>> now. ;)>>>> All real progress starts with discussion. Please don't be so dismissive.>> See my first comments, please? :)>> --> Sincerely,> Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen >>-- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc.http://prometheuslabor.com413-572-1300Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internethttp://communicateordie.com--Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080527/b7e7cdb6/attachment-0001.htm From sepeck at gmail.com Tue May 27 16:26:56 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:26:56 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <3569.69.202.93.190.1211862535.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> <3569.69.202.93.190.1211862535.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> Message-ID: So my kids birthday was this weekend and as a result I was off line. Some random responses in no particular order. - I will not turn on book author display in the theme. This was a community decision a long time ago that I agree with. - I really would prefer not to add long lists of names to individual pages in the body content. In the past, this tended to have the effect of suppressing contributions and updates in that area so we stopped doing it. - The changing of 'author' info for those without Edit nodes is a bug as far as I am concerned, I believe it existed in 4.7 as well. It is fixed in Drupal 6 book module, I worked very hard to make sure that was fixed in Drupal 6. We are not on Drupal 6 at this time. - How will people know they can contribute? How can we make it more visible that they can? The very first paragraph on the /handbooks page, please read it. It has two links on this information. This is an issue I have been pondering for quite some time but no matter how many places we add this information, no matter how many times we tell people it seems we always have people that don't see the information. I am unsure what a 'block' of author information on each page will do for people that the revisions tag does not. I will have to re-read this thread to see if I can figure that out. There is a lot of old content on this site under different original authorship that I have re-written from scratch and I still did not change the author info for. Far more then the '80' pages I have credit for. My page count used to be over 100 but the 'edit nodes' behavior has reduced that over time. . Another block with contributor information? If such a block is added where visually would this block be placed? Left side Right? Top block, bottom, verbiage? I do not buy the 'what if' guess about how new people might feel as a justification to change anything. I am certainly open to increasing visibility for contributors and how to contribute but please, don't use 'guesses' or suppositions to support your ideas. Good ideas will remain good ideas without such speculation. The very first paragraph on the /handbooks landing page has links on how to contribute as does the /contribute page has this information as well. I have talked to a lot of new people about this and have added/changed wording on a annual basis based on these real conversations with new contributors. We have 284 people with documentation maintainer rights. I will have to re-read this thread later to see what else I missed. Back to my day (and lately night/weekend) job. -Steven From sepeck at gmail.com Tue May 27 16:32:02 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:32:02 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of joining the community. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin > wrote: >> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >> handbook pages that will be spidered. > > > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. > > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, couldn't > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! > > Nat > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > From shai at content2zero.com Tue May 27 19:47:46 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> Steve P. wrote: > This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a > benefit of > joining the community. @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the goals of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via registering at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to get them to register. There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities from anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't believe that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the number of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over time.) I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to become involved. The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But it worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. Shai On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a > performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of > joining the community. > > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: > > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin > > wrote: > >> > >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better > >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability > >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of > >> handbook pages that will be spidered. > > > > > > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the > > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. > > > > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, > couldn't > > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! > > > > Nat > > -- > > 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/20080527/9bf38d98/attachment.htm From sdondley at gmail.com Tue May 27 20:09:56 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:09:56 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805271309h5f3b508w2a89635c3cf7c77c@mail.gmail.com> Well stated, Shai. And, Steve P's reasoning leaves me scratching my head wondering who is actually going to be motivated to register at drupal.org to see the revisions history? And how would anyone know they could see the list of revisions unless they registered in the first place? I guess we could put the revision tab there and then give a hearty "access denied" to anyone who clicked on it. But that's not a very welcoming message to send to new users in the community. On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > Steve P. wrote: >> >> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a >> benefit of >> joining the community. > > @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the goals > of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via registering > at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to get > them to register. > > There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities from > anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't believe > that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the number > of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. > > I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The > proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that > inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, > business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned > with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm > user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over > time.) > > I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean > "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project > leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It > isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly > motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant > transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to > become involved. > > The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But it > worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain > information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling > to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. > > Shai > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >> >> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a >> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of >> joining the community. >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: >> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better >> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability >> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. >> > >> > >> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the >> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. >> > >> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, >> > couldn't >> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! >> > >> > Nat >> > -- >> > 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/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sepeck at gmail.com Tue May 27 20:22:22 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:22:22 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It's not a reward it's a tool. I am not about 'increasing registered users' I am about increasing contributors. One of the goals many people at Drupal.org is to garner more participation in the community. This is not about being elitist thankyouverymuch. This is not about with holding 'goodies'. I am not really all that worried about 'transparency' to random non-involved people. If they can't be bothered to be involved then they can make use of Drupal as they will and best of luck to them. If they choose to get involved at the most basic of levels by having an account, then they reap the benefits of that information. I believe we should be accountable to the community which is each other, not random outsiders who can't be bothered to participate. I am aware that some may not share this view but it has been mine for quite some time. I am a true believer in our communities meritocracy. I believe that it has served us well for quite some time. I will also point out that this is still a very open discussion and I am trying to catch up/filter through things to get to some solid ideas but unless Dries over rides me, the end decision will be mine to make. I will also mention that I do not always move quickly. Do not mistake random user on the Internet with the Drupal community. In my mind the two are different and I care about the people who are involved in the community. Steven On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > Steve P. wrote: >> >> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a >> benefit of >> joining the community. > > @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the goals > of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via registering > at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to get > them to register. > > There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities from > anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't believe > that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the number > of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. > > I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The > proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that > inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, > business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned > with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm > user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over > time.) > > I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean > "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project > leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It > isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly > motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant > transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to > become involved. > > The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But it > worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain > information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling > to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. > > Shai > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >> >> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a >> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of >> joining the community. >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: >> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better >> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability >> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. >> > >> > >> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the >> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. >> > >> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, >> > couldn't >> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! >> > >> > Nat >> > -- >> > 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 shai at content2zero.com Tue May 27 21:19:40 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:19:40 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805271419uaa9cf59j5bd4c57ae0fcb442@mail.gmail.com> @steve-p, Why are "random outsiders" presumed to be bad? Random outsiders are future adopters of Drupal. Drupal does not exist for the sake of the Drupal community. At Yahoo in 3/07 Dries said, "The purpose of Drupal is to put web developers out-of-work." And he made reference to that statement in his Boston, 2008 talk. I think one could write a book on that statement. I think there may be a bit of a wink-wink/nod-nod in that statement. I actually think he's saying something like "our goal is to increase the impact of web developers on the way people get and exchange information." I think he is trying to get people to think about what they are doing in terms of affecting society and not just building web sites. I think Dries is trying to point us to something that is bigger than this community. @steve-p: "I believe we should be accountable to the community which is each other." I believe Dries said something totally counter to that at Drupalcon, 2008. It was in the part of the talk about the problems that were revealed at University of Minnesota usability testing. He said that we are accountable to the end user, and that we have failed. There was nothing negative about the affect of his statement at all. This communicates that Dries is not about spin. He wants to leverage the excitement of the community (he's not worried that saying "we have failed" will get anyone less excited) to challenge us to make Drupal better. Part of the power of web 2.0 is that it presumes that people are not bad, while at the same time developing code that creates secure sites in ways that aren't blunt. Typical security works like this: punish everyone because we know a few people are bad apples. Web 2.0 does not work that way. Why hold back anything if there is not a good reason? Let's say I am a university administrator trying to teach myself about what is the best CMS to use for professor or department web sites. I'm looking *at *the Drupal community, I'm evaluating it. I come to a node and see the revisions tab. Wow, I think -- this community is transparent. This community is willing to reveal its process. This is open source at its best. Part of the stress of evaluating any product or group is that one assumes that the group/product being evaluated will be trying to hide its secrets. So when someone sees that the evolution of the d.o. handbook is open for all to see, it communicates that this group is not about hiding its secrets. The result is to lower the anxiety of the person doing the evaluation. It makes it more appealing for someone to choose Drupal. The "Revision Tab" to anon users would communicate a lot about Drupal's desire to grow, welcome new blood, but most importantly, it would communicate that the Drupal community does not have secrets it is trying to hide. Shai On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > It's not a reward it's a tool. I am not about 'increasing registered > users' I am about increasing contributors. > > One of the goals many people at Drupal.org is to garner more > participation in the community. This is not about being elitist > thankyouverymuch. This is not about with holding 'goodies'. I am not > really all that worried about 'transparency' to random non-involved > people. If they can't be bothered to be involved then they can make > use of Drupal as they will and best of luck to them. If they choose > to get involved at the most basic of levels by having an account, then > they reap the benefits of that information. > > I believe we should be accountable to the community which is each > other, not random outsiders who can't be bothered to participate. I > am aware that some may not share this view but it has been mine for > quite some time. I am a true believer in our communities meritocracy. > I believe that it has served us well for quite some time. > > I will also point out that this is still a very open discussion and I > am trying to catch up/filter through things to get to some solid ideas > but unless Dries over rides me, the end decision will be mine to make. > I will also mention that I do not always move quickly. > > Do not mistake random user on the Internet with the Drupal community. > In my mind the two are different and I care about the people who are > involved in the community. > > Steven > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Shai Gluskin > wrote: > > Steve P. wrote: > >> > >> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a > >> benefit of > >> joining the community. > > > > @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the > goals > > of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via > registering > > at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to > get > > them to register. > > > > There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities > from > > anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't > believe > > that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the > number > > of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. > > > > I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The > > proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that > > inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, > > business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned > > with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. > (I'm > > user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over > > time.) > > > > I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean > > "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as > project > > leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. > It > > isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly > > motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant > > transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people > to > > become involved. > > > > The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But > it > > worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain > > information being used as a reward for registration. That feels > controlling > > to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. > > > > Shai > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > >> > >> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a > >> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of > >> joining the community. > >> > >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: > >> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd > better > >> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The > scalability > >> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of > >> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. > >> > > >> > > >> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the > >> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. > >> > > >> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, > >> > couldn't > >> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! > >> > > >> > Nat > >> > -- > >> > 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/20080527/665eab21/attachment.htm From sdondley at gmail.com Tue May 27 22:38:04 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:38:04 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805271538q202a6b77rc8abfd7d26b7b71b@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > It's not a reward it's a tool. Well there are two ways of looking at this tool (I'm referring to the list of revisions). You can look at it as a tool to track changes to the document. And/or you can look at it as a recruitment tool. I argue, and I think Shai as well, that you might be overlooking to turn the revision list into a recruitment tool for new contributors. I know you are not an elitist so I'm sure you are all for others joining the Drupal party. So that's what I'm asking you to do...to think of the revisions list as a recruitment tool and how a public display of who contributed will attract others as well. I've stated my reasons why I think it will attract more document contributors in the original post so I won't rehash it here. But I hope you'll take this into consideration. I am not about 'increasing registered > users' I am about increasing contributors. > > One of the goals many people at Drupal.org is to garner more > participation in the community. This is not about being elitist > thankyouverymuch. This is not about with holding 'goodies'. I am not > really all that worried about 'transparency' to random non-involved > people. If they can't be bothered to be involved then they can make > use of Drupal as they will and best of luck to them. If they choose > to get involved at the most basic of levels by having an account, then > they reap the benefits of that information. > > I believe we should be accountable to the community which is each > other, not random outsiders who can't be bothered to participate. I > am aware that some may not share this view but it has been mine for > quite some time. I am a true believer in our communities meritocracy. > I believe that it has served us well for quite some time. > > I will also point out that this is still a very open discussion and I > am trying to catch up/filter through things to get to some solid ideas > but unless Dries over rides me, the end decision will be mine to make. > I will also mention that I do not always move quickly. > > Do not mistake random user on the Internet with the Drupal community. > In my mind the two are different and I care about the people who are > involved in the community. > > Steven > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Shai Gluskin wrote: >> Steve P. wrote: >>> >>> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a >>> benefit of >>> joining the community. >> >> @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the goals >> of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via registering >> at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to get >> them to register. >> >> There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities from >> anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't believe >> that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the number >> of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. >> >> I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The >> proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that >> inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, >> business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned >> with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm >> user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over >> time.) >> >> I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean >> "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project >> leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It >> isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly >> motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant >> transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to >> become involved. >> >> The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But it >> worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain >> information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling >> to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. >> >> Shai >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >>> >>> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a >>> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of >>> joining the community. >>> >>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: >>> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better >>> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability >>> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >>> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. >>> > >>> > >>> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the >>> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. >>> > >>> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, >>> > couldn't >>> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! >>> > >>> > Nat >>> > -- >>> > 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/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From drupal-docs at webchick.net Tue May 27 22:49:39 2008 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:49:39 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805271538q202a6b77rc8abfd7d26b7b71b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805271538q202a6b77rc8abfd7d26b7b71b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483C9003.1080703@webchick.net> Steve Dondley wrote: > So that's what I'm asking you to do...to think of the revisions list > as a recruitment tool and how a public display of who contributed will > attract others as well. I've stated my reasons why I think it will > attract more document contributors in the original post so I won't > rehash it here. So at something like 65+ replies to this thread, it'd be nice if you (or someone else who feels strongly that things ought to be changed) would take the first actionable step here, which is to post to http://drupal.org/node/add/project-issue/webmasters and ask for the revisions tab to be switched on for anon users, and/or inquire as to why this isn't currently the case. -Angie From sdondley at gmail.com Tue May 27 22:54:50 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:54:50 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <483C9003.1080703@webchick.net> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805271538q202a6b77rc8abfd7d26b7b71b@mail.gmail.com> <483C9003.1080703@webchick.net> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805271554v5f690ffck67e149235fa19c58@mail.gmail.com> > So at something like 65+ replies to this thread, it'd be nice if you (or > someone else who feels strongly that things ought to be changed) would > take the first actionable step here, which is to post to > http://drupal.org/node/add/project-issue/webmasters and ask for the > revisions tab to be switched on for anon users, and/or inquire as to why > this isn't currently the case. Thanks for recommending this next course of action. I'll do that. > > -Angie > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sepeck at gmail.com Tue May 27 23:07:57 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:07:57 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805271419uaa9cf59j5bd4c57ae0fcb442@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271419uaa9cf59j5bd4c57ae0fcb442@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: You continue to put inaccurate conclusion to my words and I find this annoying. At no point did I say anonymous users were bad. I find it aggravating that several people have jumped to this conclusion and attribute a hostility that isn't there. My focus is on the active contributing Drupal user community. I do not view anonymous viewers of the website as members of my community. I do not view them as the enemy either. I am just not interested in them. Many people are and they are welcome to write documentation, opinion pieces, work on install packages to ease those users transition. Of course, they need an account. I have written most of the stuff I contributed to introduce many of these new users to Drupal. As a way to encourage them to join, help, participate. On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > @steve-p, > > Why are "random outsiders" presumed to be bad? Random outsiders are future > adopters of Drupal. > > Drupal does not exist for the sake of the Drupal community. > > At Yahoo in 3/07 Dries said, "The purpose of Drupal is to put web developers > out-of-work." And he made reference to that statement in his Boston, 2008 > talk. I think one could write a book on that statement. I think there may be > a bit of a wink-wink/nod-nod in that statement. I actually think he's saying > something like "our goal is to increase the impact of web developers on the > way people get and exchange information." I think he is trying to get people > to think about what they are doing in terms of affecting society and not > just building web sites. I think Dries is trying to point us to something > that is bigger than this community. And that's an interesting interpretation. I don't quite disagree with it, but don't see it's relevance here nor agree with your conclusion. > @steve-p: "I believe we should be accountable to the community which is each > other." > > I believe Dries said something totally counter to that at Drupalcon, 2008. > It was in the part of the talk about the problems that were revealed at > University of Minnesota usability testing. He said that we are accountable > to the end user, and that we have failed. Define end user better. However, have you read the study? It was eight users. There are a lot of things people are saying to justify their position based on that study (which I think is important) but it cannot be a single reason for every proposed change. It was eight users in a very difficult task situation. The people who put together that study also learned a lot. We need to evaluate and make measured changes based on it, but it was a study on the usability and configuration of Drupal. Not Drupal.org. Valuable information was learned about Drupal.org at the time but I do not think adding INFORMATION OVERLOAD will help new users. New users are already already are at a disadvantage. It's why the Getting Started book is structured the way it is. A guided introduction to Drupal, the important aspects of the community and how to install core. Several times in this thread people mentioned 'no one can figure out how to help' already but I have received no response to the fact that it is the very first paragraph on the /handbooks page and how to make that more visible. > There was nothing negative about the affect of his statement at all. This > communicates that Dries is not about spin. He wants to leverage the > excitement of the community (he's not worried that saying "we have failed" > will get anyone less excited) to challenge us to make Drupal better. > > Part of the power of web 2.0 is that it presumes that people are not bad, > while at the same time developing code that creates secure sites in ways > that aren't blunt. Typical security works like this: punish everyone because > we know a few people are bad apples. Web 2.0 does not work that way. If you or anyone else continues to claim I said or think end users are bad I will get really irritated. I said I wasn't interested in people who did not participate in our community. I'm not. I write documentation that will help them. I write it from the perspective of a new user. This should help them. > Why hold back anything if there is not a good reason? I think my reason is good. You don't. > Let's say I am a university administrator trying to teach myself about what > is the best CMS to use for professor or department web sites. I'm looking at > the Drupal community, I'm evaluating it. I come to a node and see the > revisions tab. Wow, I think -- this community is transparent. This community > is willing to reveal its process. This is open source at its best. > If you are evaluating Drupal why would you not create an account? Let's say you are a university professor trying to evaluate Drupal, you see the create account button on the website and create an account....... unattributed scenarios are just that. > Part of the stress of evaluating any product or group is that one assumes > that the group/product being evaluated will be trying to hide its secrets. > So when someone sees that the evolution of the d.o. handbook is open for all > to see, it communicates that this group is not about hiding its secrets. The > result is to lower the anxiety of the person doing the evaluation. It makes > it more appealing for someone to choose Drupal. > One assumes ... trying to hide secrets? Why on earth would you ever assume that? What a horrible way to live. It also assume facts not in evidence. No user I have chatted with in real life or irc has ever mentioned that they thought that some mysterious 'we' were trying to hide secrets. Also, why would you not create an account if you were evaluating whether or not you were going to invest time in teaching something? > The "Revision Tab" to anon users would communicate a lot about Drupal's > desire to grow, welcome new blood, but most importantly, it would > communicate that the Drupal community does not have secrets it is trying to > hide. > > Shai > The revision tab is not about 'secrets'. It is about change in content. I find the initial base assumption that it's about secrets some what horrifying to contemplate. Drupal is not now nor has it ever been a vast conspiracy to hide things. It is a community. I don't see any evidence to suggest that enabling revisions further for anonymous users would be a benefit. There are other implications that would need to be addressed as well as it is across all node types, etc. I strongly disagree with some of the foundations of your argument as justification for change. There were several other things on the initial list this thread generated. Let's look at those first and come back to this later because at this point I am not going to change that one features behavior based on this justification. Steven > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >> >> It's not a reward it's a tool. I am not about 'increasing registered >> users' I am about increasing contributors. >> >> One of the goals many people at Drupal.org is to garner more >> participation in the community. This is not about being elitist >> thankyouverymuch. This is not about with holding 'goodies'. I am not >> really all that worried about 'transparency' to random non-involved >> people. If they can't be bothered to be involved then they can make >> use of Drupal as they will and best of luck to them. If they choose >> to get involved at the most basic of levels by having an account, then >> they reap the benefits of that information. >> >> I believe we should be accountable to the community which is each >> other, not random outsiders who can't be bothered to participate. I >> am aware that some may not share this view but it has been mine for >> quite some time. I am a true believer in our communities meritocracy. >> I believe that it has served us well for quite some time. >> >> I will also point out that this is still a very open discussion and I >> am trying to catch up/filter through things to get to some solid ideas >> but unless Dries over rides me, the end decision will be mine to make. >> I will also mention that I do not always move quickly. >> >> Do not mistake random user on the Internet with the Drupal community. >> In my mind the two are different and I care about the people who are >> involved in the community. >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Shai Gluskin >> wrote: >> > Steve P. wrote: >> >> >> >> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a >> >> benefit of >> >> joining the community. >> > >> > @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the >> > goals >> > of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via >> > registering >> > at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to >> > get >> > them to register. >> > >> > There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities >> > from >> > anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't >> > believe >> > that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the >> > number >> > of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. >> > >> > I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. >> > The >> > proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that >> > inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of >> > government, >> > business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically >> > concerned >> > with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. >> > (I'm >> > user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over >> > time.) >> > >> > I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean >> > "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as >> > project >> > leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. >> > It >> > isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly >> > motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant >> > transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people >> > to >> > become involved. >> > >> > The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But >> > it >> > worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain >> > information being used as a reward for registration. That feels >> > controlling >> > to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. >> > >> > Shai >> > >> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >> >> >> >> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a >> >> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of >> >> joining the community. >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: >> >> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd >> >> >> better >> >> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The >> >> >> scalability >> >> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >> >> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the >> >> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. >> >> > >> >> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, >> >> > couldn't >> >> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! >> >> > >> >> > Nat >> >> > -- >> >> > 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 shai at content2zero.com Wed May 28 00:32:55 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:32:55 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271419uaa9cf59j5bd4c57ae0fcb442@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805271732u7b4202d5ja0a7ce06c5b872f0@mail.gmail.com> Steve, I think you are interpreting my passion about this topic as being aimed at you. It's not aimed at you personally. But your role as a decision making leader in the Drupal community, which means you make decisions that affect the lives of others and their motivation to participate in Drupal, means that you will take heat at times. If there is any way that you think I've been disrespectful, please advise. When I say you should expect heat, I don't think anyone has the right to put forth ideas in a disrespectful manner. I appreciate what you do for Drupal now and in the past. I think that facing folks who disagree with your opinion/approach is part of what it means to be a leader who is accountable. @steve-p: "My focus is on the active contributing Drupal user community." ... "If you or anyone else continues to claim I said or think end users are bad I will get really irritated. I said I wasn't interested in people who did not participate in our community. I'm not." Steve, I'm not questioning your authority at all. I wrote in an earlier post that Drupal is not democratic. I'm fine with that. But I do think your ability to lead is undermined by justifying a policy decision based on what *your *focus is and what *your* interest is. @steve-p: "At no point did I say anonymous users were bad." Okay, I was interpreting the word "outsider," which in many cultures has a negative connotation. But let's just stick with your word: you said were not *interested* in them. Anonymous users are potential users/promoters/contributors to the Drupal project. I think those are the folks who we should target for "converting" into registered users. It's our job, in my opinion, to interest them, *before* they have registered. I think a revisions tab for anonymous users makes Drupal more interesting and appealing. Regarding my example of Dries' description of what happened at U of M: My point has nothing to do with the specifics of what came out of UM. It has to do with Dries as a leader; how he was setting an example for us as a community. Drupal.org and its policies set an example that communicates what Drupal is about. I want to follow Dries' lead of being honest and open. The revisions tab is a small but meaningful way we can communicate that to those not yet on board with Drupal. @steve-p: "Define end user better." Anyone who uses Drupal. From the person who shows up as a user on Sony's "MyPlay" site or "The Onion" to an office manager at a non-profit looking for a CMS to upgrade their web site... and many many more. I felt that Dries spoke in grand terms at DrupalCon Boston. He was talking about Drupal making a big impact. That means reaching out. @steve-p: "Several times in this thread people mentioned 'no one can figure out how to help' already but I have received no response to the fact that it is the very first paragraph on the /handbooks page and how to make that more visible." Steve: That's not particularly my issue. But I think it speaks to the fact fact that effectiveness is not always achieved via page placement. The open-source process in wonderful and it's chaotic. Drupal is a moving target because of its commitment to growth and change, which can make things harder as well. Much isn't easy. I think if people are expressing consternation at not knowing how to help, I think that data needs to be received at face value, with curiosity. @steve-p: "One assumes ... trying to hide secrets? Why on earth would you ever assume that? What a horrible way to live. It also assume facts not in evidence. No user I have chatted with in real life or irc has ever mentioned that they thought that some mysterious 'we' were trying to hide secrets. Also, why would you not create an account if you were evaluating whether or not you were going to invest time in teaching something?" Steve, I'm not talking about stuff that is particularly nefarious. I'm talking about the conventioal dance of "sales." People who are selling a home want to emphasize the good stuff, and pretty much only reveal what is legally, and maybe morally, obligating them about the bad stuff. It's left up to the buyers to try to uncover/imagine, what might be the bad stuff. Or in the case of proprietary software, the code is, literally, a secret. You have to rely on other end-user experiences - you can't snoop under the hood of the code at all. Open source is different. All I'm saying is that we should provide as much tangible evidence that we can to *show* users what an open-source approach is all about. I think that the documentation area is a more likely place that an office manager or similar non-developer will snoop around. They aren't going to peek into CVS. I'm not suggesting there are real secrets in the revisions tab. I'm saying it paints Drupal and its "process" in a very favorable light for an anonymous user to be able to see a bit inside the belly of Drupal. Why wouldn't someone create an account? People don't like creating accounts. Passwords, confirmation e-mails, user names, etc. People are overwhelmed. In an initial review of CMS possibilities a typical decision-maker might have 6 CMSs on his/her short list. We need to make a first impression. I think the burden should be on us to make d.o. and Drupal attractive enough that they'll overcome that hurdle. Shai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080527/efcd6c0c/attachment-0001.htm From joshua at brauerranch.com Wed May 28 01:02:54 2008 From: joshua at brauerranch.com (Joshua Brauer) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 19:02:54 -0600 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805271732u7b4202d5ja0a7ce06c5b872f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271419uaa9cf59j5bd4c57ae0fcb442@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271732u7b4202d5ja0a7ce06c5b872f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <67587DB1-3808-4DC5-AD49-824DBCD2BBFD@brauerranch.com> > > > @steve-p: "Define end user better." > > Anyone who uses Drupal. From the person who shows up as a user on > Sony's "MyPlay" site or "The Onion" to an office manager at a non- > profit looking for a CMS to upgrade their web site... and many many > more. I felt that Dries spoke in grand terms at DrupalCon Boston. > He was talking about Drupal making a big impact. That means reaching > out. > Reaching out and defining Drupal end users better are not the same thing. Using the same analogy here Apache's website would need to consider every web-enabled person in the world as an end-user to their website. Such is quite simply not possible. Nor would the flexibility and power of Drupal lend itself to drupal.org being a one-stop-shop for every end-user. In fact we make this distinction up front in the Getting Started guide http://drupal.org/node/21781 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2427 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080527/7bf0e5ec/attachment.bin From dmr37 at cornell.edu Wed May 28 03:14:29 2008 From: dmr37 at cornell.edu (David Rothstein) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> <3569.69.202.93.190.1211862535.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <2875.69.202.93.190.1211944469.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> On Tue, May 27, 2008 12:26 pm, Steven Peck wrote: > - How will people know they can contribute? How can we make it more > visible that they can? The very first paragraph on the /handbooks > page, please read it. It has two links on this information. This is > an issue I have been pondering for quite some time but no matter how > many places we add this information, no matter how many times we tell > people it seems we always have people that don't see the information. Putting it prominently on every documentation page would at least guarantee that anyone who looked at *any* documentation page had the opportunity to see it. That is hundreds and hundreds of pages rather than just a few. Constant repetition is often the best way to reinforce a message. As for exactly why they aren't seeing (or paying attention to or remembering or believing) the current notice, I would not claim to know. I have some theories, but they are just speculation at this point... > I do not buy the 'what if' guess about how new people might feel as a > justification to change anything. I am certainly open to increasing > visibility for contributors and how to contribute but please, don't > use 'guesses' or suppositions to support your ideas... [snip] ... I > have talked to a lot of new people about this and have added/changed > wording on a annual basis based on these real conversations with new > contributors. OK, agreed, although how easy is it to find the right people to talk to in this case? Presumably we also want to talk to people who are potential contributors but have *not* yet contributed, and it seems like those people might be hard to pick out. If you know of a simple way to find them, I'd be glad to talk to a few of them and ask about this particular idea. My own story is only one "data point" but it's a data point nonetheless: While it's hard to go back and remember exactly what I was thinking a year or so ago, I strongly suspect that a block like Steve Dondley suggests would have encouraged me to contribute earlier. What I can tell you for a fact is that I had in my head the idea that Drupal was produced by "the developers", and since I wasn't a real developer (just someone who used Drupal a bit at work and also as a hobby), I did not feel qualified to contribute for a while. I eventually started contributing on the forums, because I was worried (and still am, occasionally) that I was out of my league anywhere else. In retrospect, I knew a lot more than I thought I did a lot earlier than I thought I did and probably could have contributed effectively much earlier... *especially* to documentation, where new people have a bit of an edge (see http://drupal.org/contribute/documentation). Now that I am no longer quite so new, that opportunity is somewhat lost. --David Rothstein From dmr37 at cornell.edu Wed May 28 03:27:49 2008 From: dmr37 at cornell.edu (David Rothstein) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <36b9121d0805271554v5f690ffck67e149235fa19c58@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805271538q202a6b77rc8abfd7d26b7b71b@mail.gmail.com> <483C9003.1080703@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805271554v5f690ffck67e149235fa19c58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2913.69.202.93.190.1211945269.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:54 pm, Steve Dondley wrote: >> So at something like 65+ replies to this thread, it'd be nice if you (or >> someone else who feels strongly that things ought to be changed) would >> take the first actionable step here, which is to post to >> http://drupal.org/node/add/project-issue/webmasters and ask for the >> revisions tab to be switched on for anon users, and/or inquire as to why >> this isn't currently the case. > > Thanks for recommending this next course of action. I'll do that. Steve, I wonder if you should also post your more detailed plan from http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/006068.html in the issue queue? It seems to me that the plan was very well thought out, addressed the concerns that people raised, and is ready for work on some more specific details (e.g., placement of the block, its exact content, etc). Perhaps such details are better dealt with in the issue queue, as they may become lost in a mailing list discussion. Also, your proposal was, if I'm not mistaken, *totally* independent of whether or not the revisions tab itself is opened to anonymous users... --David Rothstein From sdondley at gmail.com Wed May 28 04:18:16 2008 From: sdondley at gmail.com (Steve Dondley) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:18:16 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <2913.69.202.93.190.1211945269.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805271538q202a6b77rc8abfd7d26b7b71b@mail.gmail.com> <483C9003.1080703@webchick.net> <36b9121d0805271554v5f690ffck67e149235fa19c58@mail.gmail.com> <2913.69.202.93.190.1211945269.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <36b9121d0805272118o4268aa84kc0f372921c08d69e@mail.gmail.com> > It seems to me that the plan was very well thought out, addressed the > concerns that people raised, and is ready for work on some more specific > details (e.g., placement of the block, its exact content, etc). Perhaps > such details are better dealt with in the issue queue, as they may become > lost in a mailing list discussion. Also, your proposal was, if I'm not > mistaken, *totally* independent of whether or not the revisions tab itself > is opened to anonymous users... Yeah, I thought about how to approach this before I posted. I basically decided that instead of throwing in the whole kitchen sink in there, I'd focus on the issues that seems to be getting the most resistance. If I can get approval on that one thing, I think the rest of the proposal will sail through easier. I've spent quite a number of hours on this. I hope it goes through. ;) > > --David Rothstein > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -- Prometheus Labor Communications, Inc. http://prometheuslabor.com 413-572-1300 Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://communicateordie.com From sepeck at gmail.com Wed May 28 07:39:10 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:39:10 -0700 Subject: [documentation] a little history for folks Message-ID: I had a long email but wrote a blog post instead. http://www.blkmtn.org/contributing-is-about-giving On the bright side, my workload may actually be lightening up some. I have seen the outline for the /about section and like the direction. I need to sit down and read it again in more depth, then see about getting it implemented and getting the documentation stuff more visible in the tree. From fernando at develcuy.com Wed May 28 13:43:17 2008 From: fernando at develcuy.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_P._Garc=C3=ADa?=) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:43:17 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5ba75e2f0805280643p9a4de29nab21248e3ef69a0d@mail.gmail.com> Shai, let me say with respect and good feeling: the spirit of OpenSource is democracy, there is not OpenSource without democracy. We are not equals but we all use the same: Drupal, and we all part of the same community: Drupal. Nobody used a gun for moving us to collaborate. And from my personal point of view: Nothing more near to the truth may become successful, because Democracy is a divine principle. So, please notice this particular topic is near to 100 replies: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/date.html, and our goal could be to achieve clear solutions for getting more contributors. Blessings! On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > Steve P. wrote: > >> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a >> benefit of >> joining the community. > > > @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the goals > of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via registering > at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to get > them to register. > > There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities from > anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't believe > that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the number > of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. > > I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The > proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that > inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, > business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned > with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm > user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over > time.) > > I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean > "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project > leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It > isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly > motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant > transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to > become involved. > > The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But it > worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain > information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling > to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. > > Shai > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > >> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a >> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of >> joining the community. >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: >> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better >> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability >> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. >> > >> > >> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the >> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. >> > >> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, >> couldn't >> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! >> > >> > Nat >> > -- >> > 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/ > -- 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/20080528/8c2cc673/attachment-0001.htm From shai at content2zero.com Wed May 28 16:01:03 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:01:03 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <5ba75e2f0805280643p9a4de29nab21248e3ef69a0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <5ba75e2f0805280643p9a4de29nab21248e3ef69a0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70805280901h446b7b86nc4add96d076cce2d@mail.gmail.com> Fernando and all, @Fernando: "our goal could be to achieve clear solutions for getting more contributors." I agree. I think this thread has run its course. See the links below. @Fernando: "the spirit of OpenSource is democracy, there is not OpenSource without democracy." What I meant in that context was: "We don't take formal votes to make decisions." Also in that context, where I was challenging Steve P., the head of Drupal's Documentation team, I wanted to make sure he knew I wasn't challenging his authority. But yes, I agree with everything you said. Here are two action follow-ups that emerged from this conversation that are now on the issue queue: Proposal to give anonymous users access to revisions tab on doc pages . Proposal to add a block to thank current contributors and recruit new ones . Shai On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Fernando P. Garc?a wrote: > Shai, let me say with respect and good feeling: the spirit of OpenSource is > democracy, there is not OpenSource without democracy. We are not equals but > we all use the same: Drupal, and we all part of the same community: Drupal. > Nobody used a gun for moving us to collaborate. And from my personal point > of view: Nothing more near to the truth may become successful, because > Democracy is a divine principle. > > So, please notice this particular topic is near to 100 replies: > http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/date.html, and > our goal could be to achieve clear solutions for getting more contributors. > > Blessings! > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Shai Gluskin > wrote: > >> Steve P. wrote: >> >>> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a >>> benefit of >>> joining the community. >> >> >> @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the goals >> of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via registering >> at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to >> get them to register. >> >> There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities >> from anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't >> believe that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the >> number of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. >> >> I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The >> proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that >> inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, >> business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned >> with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm >> user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over >> time.) >> >> I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean >> "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project >> leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It >> isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly >> motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant >> transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to >> become involved. >> >> The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But it >> worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain >> information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling >> to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. >> >> Shai >> >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >> >>> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a >>> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of >>> joining the community. >>> >>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: >>> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better >>> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The scalability >>> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >>> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. >>> > >>> > >>> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the >>> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. >>> > >>> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, >>> couldn't >>> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! >>> > >>> > Nat >>> > -- >>> > 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/ >> > > > > -- > 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? > > -- > 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/20080528/12bd5433/attachment.htm From sepeck at gmail.com Wed May 28 16:21:52 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:21:52 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70805280901h446b7b86nc4add96d076cce2d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2247a8a70805261010k7581bdb9re68810b798fe0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805271247s37c3780gbcad41d8e8f8deaf@mail.gmail.com> <5ba75e2f0805280643p9a4de29nab21248e3ef69a0d@mail.gmail.com> <9f68efb70805280901h446b7b86nc4add96d076cce2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I didn't see you as challenging my authority. I saw you as claiming I said or meant things I had not in fact said or meant. I asked 3 co-workers and my wife to double check my reading of your emails. I can accept that in a language rich environment that some things /concepts may not translate one to one as intended so we're good on that issue. I don't actually view it as my authority in any case. I view it as my responsibility. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > Fernando and all, > > @Fernando: "our goal could be to achieve clear solutions for getting more > contributors." > > I agree. I think this thread has run its course. See the links below. > > @Fernando: "the spirit of OpenSource is democracy, there is not OpenSource > without democracy." > > What I meant in that context was: "We don't take formal votes to make > decisions." Also in that context, where I was challenging Steve P., the head > of Drupal's Documentation team, I wanted to make sure he knew I wasn't > challenging his authority. But yes, I agree with everything you said. > > Here are two action follow-ups that emerged from this conversation that are > now on the issue queue: > Proposal to give anonymous users access to revisions tab on doc pages. > Proposal to add a block to thank current contributors and recruit new ones. > > Shai > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Fernando P. Garc?a > wrote: >> >> Shai, let me say with respect and good feeling: the spirit of OpenSource >> is democracy, there is not OpenSource without democracy. We are not equals >> but we all use the same: Drupal, and we all part of the same community: >> Drupal. Nobody used a gun for moving us to collaborate. And from my personal >> point of view: Nothing more near to the truth may become successful, because >> Democracy is a divine principle. >> >> So, please notice this particular topic is near to 100 replies: >> http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/date.html, and our >> goal could be to achieve clear solutions for getting more contributors. >> >> Blessings! >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Shai Gluskin >> wrote: >>> >>> Steve P. wrote: >>>> >>>> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a >>>> benefit of >>>> joining the community. >>> >>> @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the >>> goals of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via >>> registering at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in >>> order to get them to register. >>> >>> There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities >>> from anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't >>> believe that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the >>> number of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason. >>> >>> I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The >>> proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that >>> inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government, >>> business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned >>> with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm >>> user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over >>> time.) >>> >>> I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean >>> "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project >>> leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It >>> isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly >>> motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant >>> transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to >>> become involved. >>> >>> The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But >>> it worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain >>> information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling >>> to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach. >>> >>> Shai >>> >>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >>>> >>>> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users. This is not a >>>> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of >>>> joining the community. >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch wrote: >>>> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd >>>> >> better >>>> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people). The >>>> >> scalability >>>> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of >>>> >> handbook pages that will be spidered. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the >>>> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway. >>>> > >>>> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant, >>>> > couldn't >>>> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta! >>>> > >>>> > Nat >>>> > -- >>>> > 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/ >> >> >> >> -- >> 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? >> >> -- >> 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 bchoc at t4tcolorado.org Thu May 29 18:06:46 2008 From: bchoc at t4tcolorado.org (Brian Choc) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:06:46 -0600 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <2875.69.202.93.190.1211944469.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> <3569.69.202.93.190.1211862535.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> <2875.69.202.93.190.1211944469.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <010f01c8c1b6$c3882fb0$4a988f10$@org> >> - How will people know they can contribute? How can we make it more >> visible that they can? The very first paragraph on the /handbooks >> page, please read it. It has two links on this information. This is >> an issue I have been pondering for quite some time but no matter how >> many places we add this information, no matter how many times we tell >> people it seems we always have people that don't see the information. > >Putting it prominently on every documentation page would at least >guarantee that anyone who looked at *any* documentation page had the >opportunity to see it. That is hundreds and hundreds of pages rather than >just a few. Constant repetition is often the best way to reinforce a >message. As for exactly why they aren't seeing (or paying attention to or >remembering or believing) the current notice, I would not claim to know. >I have some theories, but they are just speculation at this point... As a reasonably new person with no claim to any topical authority what-so-ever, I'll throw in my two bits. Shoot 'em down, it's cool; I've got next-to-zero Drupalego. I would say that I *browse* to a manual page perhaps next to never. Maybe less. I typically land on a page by searching, either the Drupal search or a general websearch. I would anticipate I am not alone in this, and that /handbook is not the most common landing-point (of course, the web-stats should trace people's paths and give a proper answer ... so maybe I'm way off base). >From my point of view on usability, I think any paragraph on any handbook page that is not the one the user is looking at *at that moment* is irrelevant. Whether that means credits or a block or revisions or some different form I'm not even going to touch here, but I think there should be some draw to get involved. While I didn't notice it at first, I would add a close read of the page does show me a "Join the doc team" link (that as of this moment does not actually link) in the "Quick links" menu, but this does not tell me who or what or why. Lively topic, this one, Brian From sepeck at gmail.com Thu May 29 18:34:34 2008 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:34:34 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition In-Reply-To: <010f01c8c1b6$c3882fb0$4a988f10$@org> References: <36b9121d0805251740ya63890en580748193e6f7fa3@mail.gmail.com> <36b9121d0805260813g65130964gec7f54606551b48@mail.gmail.com> <3569.69.202.93.190.1211862535.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> <2875.69.202.93.190.1211944469.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> <010f01c8c1b6$c3882fb0$4a988f10$@org> Message-ID: On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Brian Choc wrote: >>> - How will people know they can contribute? How can we make it more >>> visible that they can? The very first paragraph on the /handbooks >>> page, please read it. It has two links on this information. This is >>> an issue I have been pondering for quite some time but no matter how >>> many places we add this information, no matter how many times we tell >>> people it seems we always have people that don't see the information. >> >>Putting it prominently on every documentation page would at least >>guarantee that anyone who looked at *any* documentation page had the >>opportunity to see it. That is hundreds and hundreds of pages rather than >>just a few. Constant repetition is often the best way to reinforce a >>message. As for exactly why they aren't seeing (or paying attention to or >>remembering or believing) the current notice, I would not claim to know. >>I have some theories, but they are just speculation at this point... > > > As a reasonably new person with no claim to any topical authority > what-so-ever, I'll throw in my two bits. Shoot 'em down, it's cool; I've > got next-to-zero Drupalego. > > I would say that I *browse* to a manual page perhaps next to never. Maybe > less. I typically land on a page by searching, either the Drupal search or > a general websearch. I would anticipate I am not alone in this, and that > /handbook is not the most common landing-point (of course, the web-stats > should trace people's paths and give a proper answer ... so maybe I'm way > off base). > > >From my point of view on usability, I think any paragraph on any handbook > page that is not the one the user is looking at *at that moment* is > irrelevant. Whether that means credits or a block or revisions or some > different form I'm not even going to touch here, but I think there should be > some draw to get involved. > > While I didn't notice it at first, I would add a close read of the page does > show me a "Join the doc team" link (that as of this moment does not actually > link) in the "Quick links" menu, but this does not tell me who or what or > why. > > Lively topic, this one, > Brian > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > Link is fixed. (typo evidently) From meitarm at gmail.com Fri May 30 10:21:46 2008 From: meitarm at gmail.com (Mr. Meitar Moscovitz) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 20:21:46 +1000 Subject: [documentation] Getting involved with documentation efforts: how and where? Message-ID: Hi all, I'm new here, and I'm a developer new to Drupal as well. I've just recently begun working with Drupal full time in a professional context, and in the process have found the existing Drupal docs to be of invaluable importance in my learning. Naturally, I found some areas where they could be better, more clear, or are simply lacking. I thought I'd raise my hand to volunteer to help out whatever documentation efforts the Drupal community has and, especially as a new Drupal user and developer, try to flesh out whatever I can so its more accessible to people without prior Drupal experience or knowledge. I've already added a few a page of my own to the documentation, not very Drupal-specific but helpful (I think), which you can see at http://drupal.org/user/265715/track A while ago I also put in this documentation issue: http://drupal.org/node/238799 I let it sit for a while since I hadn't had the time to get back to it? it's always a challenge to balance "getting work done" and "giving back to the community" as I'm sure you al know. In any event, I'd love to start getting more involved, but don't know precisely how to go about doing that. I figured what better place to ask than here, on the doc list? Who do I poke about that documentation issue? Where can I go to see other issues that I can help out with (if not the documentation issues, which apparently I need special privileges that I lack to affect). So basically?yeah, where might I be needed, or helpful? By way of delayed introduction, I'm a technical author and a web developer/sysadmin by trade. I'm specifically a front-end specialist, with a focus on semantic web technologies, and if that's not enough, I'm dating a writer. :) Cheers, -Meitar Moscovitz Drupal: http://drupal.org/user/265715 Personal: http://maymay.net/ Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com/ From catch56 at googlemail.com Fri May 30 10:41:28 2008 From: catch56 at googlemail.com (Nathaniel Catchpole) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:41:28 +0100 Subject: [documentation] Getting involved with documentation efforts: how and where? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Meitar, You can edit that page directly if you're a member of the documentation team. To do that, you just need to follow the process outlined here: http://drupal.org/node/23367 - the short version is go to http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ and add a request. You also seem to be our exact target for a proposed new block to make it easier to find information about contributing to documentation - your input would be very helpful on this issue: http://drupal.org/node/263767 Nat On 5/30/08, Mr. Meitar Moscovitz wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm new here, and I'm a developer new to Drupal as well. I've just > recently begun working with Drupal full time in a professional > context, and in the process have found the existing Drupal docs to be > of invaluable importance in my learning. Naturally, I found some areas > where they could be better, more clear, or are simply lacking. I > thought I'd raise my hand to volunteer to help out whatever > documentation efforts the Drupal community has and, especially as a > new Drupal user and developer, try to flesh out whatever I can so its > more accessible to people without prior Drupal experience or knowledge. > > I've already added a few a page of my own to the documentation, not > very Drupal-specific but helpful (I think), which you can see at > http://drupal.org/user/265715/track > > A while ago I also put in this documentation issue: > http://drupal.org/node/238799 > > I let it sit for a while since I hadn't had the time to get back to it? > it's always a challenge to balance "getting work done" and "giving > back to the community" as I'm sure you al know. In any event, I'd love > to start getting more involved, but don't know precisely how to go > about doing that. I figured what better place to ask than here, on the > doc list? > > Who do I poke about that documentation issue? Where can I go to see > other issues that I can help out with (if not the documentation > issues, which apparently I need special privileges that I lack to > affect). So basically?yeah, where might I be needed, or helpful? > > By way of delayed introduction, I'm a technical author and a web > developer/sysadmin by trade. I'm specifically a front-end specialist, > with a focus on semantic web technologies, and if that's not enough, > I'm dating a writer. :) > > Cheers, > -Meitar Moscovitz > > Drupal: http://drupal.org/user/265715 > Personal: http://maymay.net/ > Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com/ > > > -- > 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/20080530/92c4f4dc/attachment.htm From shai at content2zero.com Fri May 30 13:18:07 2008 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:18:07 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Getting involved with documentation efforts: how and where? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f68efb70805300618h3a7aa366va7656db7e2285dd9@mail.gmail.com> Hi Meitar, Great piece on setting up a multisite local development server! Meitar, here is the part that may have confused you: Any registered user of Drupal.org has permissions to create a new handbook page. That's how you could post the multisite local development piece that you wrote to the handbook. If you create the page, you can also edit it. In order to edit a handbook page that you did *not* create, you need to be on the docs team. I highly recommend that you join the docs team. Nat Catch gave you the URL and I'll give it to you again: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ Create a new issue and put in the title, "Request to Join Docs Team." It could take from a couple minutes to a couple days to go through. List your user number and mention that you've written a doc already. It seems like you got hung up a bit on your lack of permission to assign an issue in the issue queue to anyone other than yourself. That feature isn't really used by the documentation team, anyway. Just post away in the Doc issue queue if you have issues to bring up. Regarding the issue you raised at: http://drupal.org/node/263767(Configuring Apache and PHP for Drupal in a Shared Environment" Best Practices), which no one responded to: tt was a proposal, actually a draft, to write another book page. Let me translate the lack of response: "Meitar, go for it, no objections here." However, I totally understand that it is hard to read that in the silence. I'm pleased that you wrote to this list and didn't give up. I'll go leave a note on that issue now. Your experience teaches a lesson about how it can be confusing about how to be involved in Drupal. I second Nat's suggestion that you join the discussion at: http://drupal.org/node/263767, which in some ways is trying to address isues that you bring up. How can you help? You already have. More. Keep thinking of handbook pages that you think need writing and write some of them yourself. Poke around the handbook and edit other's work (afteryou get doc team privileges). Monitor this listserve. There are some IRC meeting being convened by Addi Berry to discuss major upgrades to the handbook for the upcoming upgrade to Drupal.org; I believe she always announces those meetings on this list serve. Monitor the documentation issue queue. Thanks for writing and I look forward to working with you and getting to know you better, Shai content2zero On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Nathaniel Catchpole wrote: > > Meitar, > > You can edit that page directly if you're a member of the documentation team. To do that, you just need to follow the process outlined here: http://drupal.org/node/23367 - the short version is go to http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ and add a request. > > You also seem to be our exact target for a proposed new block to make it easier to find information about contributing to documentation - your input would be very helpful on this issue: http://drupal.org/node/263767 > > Nat > > > > > On 5/30/08, Mr. Meitar Moscovitz wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm new here, and I'm a developer new to Drupal as well. I've just >> recently begun working with Drupal full time in a professional >> context, and in the process have found the existing Drupal docs to be >> of invaluable importance in my learning. Naturally, I found some areas >> where they could be better, more clear, or are simply lacking. I >> thought I'd raise my hand to volunteer to help out whatever >> documentation efforts the Drupal community has and, especially as a >> new Drupal user and developer, try to flesh out whatever I can so its >> more accessible to people without prior Drupal experience or knowledge. >> >> I've already added a few a page of my own to the documentation, not >> very Drupal-specific but helpful (I think), which you can see at http://drupal.org/user/265715/track >> >> A while ago I also put in this documentation issue: http://drupal.org/node/238799 >> >> I let it sit for a while since I hadn't had the time to get back to it? >> it's always a challenge to balance "getting work done" and "giving >> back to the community" as I'm sure you al know. In any event, I'd love >> to start getting more involved, but don't know precisely how to go >> about doing that. I figured what better place to ask than here, on the >> doc list? >> >> Who do I poke about that documentation issue? Where can I go to see >> other issues that I can help out with (if not the documentation >> issues, which apparently I need special privileges that I lack to >> affect). So basically?yeah, where might I be needed, or helpful? >> >> By way of delayed introduction, I'm a technical author and a web >> developer/sysadmin by trade. I'm specifically a front-end specialist, >> with a focus on semantic web technologies, and if that's not enough, >> I'm dating a writer. :) >> >> Cheers, >> -Meitar Moscovitz >> >> Drupal: http://drupal.org/user/265715 >> Personal: http://maymay.net/ >> Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com/ >> >> >> -- >> 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/20080530/8a0ff5b5/attachment-0001.htm