From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Apr 15 00:34:10 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:34:10 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Fwd: Documentation Team: 'Doc survey results' at groups.drupal.org References: <20090415003011.249DC16B4E4@www1.drupal.org> Message-ID: <6151088C-BD4B-40AF-865D-2B418E9D2AEB@rocktreesky.com> > add1sun has posted a Discussion at http://groups.drupal.org/node/21339 (To see the charts and find the attachements, go to the g.d.o post.) > > Doc survey results > --------------- > A few weeks ago I put up a quick survey about Drupal docs. It was > very "by-the-seat-of-my-pants" but I just wanted to start getting a > feel for where people are coming from and give the community an > opportunity to talk about docs. It wasn't scientific and it wasn't > even a "good" survey. I am definitely not a survey expert. Luckily > some folks have volunteered to help me make future surveys better, > but I'm still happy with what I learned from this one. I wanted to > share some basic stuff that I found interesting from the responses. > I don't have a lot of time to tinker with stats and such and I've > also attached the results in a CSV file so anyone else that wants to > play with them, can have fun. My main interest in this survey was to > read what people would say about docs when given an anonymous text > box and how people think of Drupal docs. OK, so anyway, here are the > goods.... > As a reminder, here are the 5 questions: > 1. How long have you been using Drupal? > 2. Are you a member of the Drupal documentation team? > 3. Do you feel that you have the skills or meet the requirements to > help with Drupal documentation? If not, please explain what skills > or requirements you feel are needed. > 4. In what ways have you contributed to Drupal documentation? > - Edited existing documentation on Drupal.org > - Wrote new handbook page(s) on Drupal.org > - Wrote or edited help text in Drupal core > - Provided a patch for API documentation (api.drupal.org) > - Created an issue in the Documentation issue queue > - Participated in a Drupal documentation meeting or sprint > - Participated in a documentation mailing list discussion > - Created documentation made available on a site other than the > Drupal.org sites > - I have not contributed to Drupal documentation > - Other (with room to explain) > 5. Please feel free to share any thoughts you have about about the > Drupal documentation team and the maintenance of Drupal documentation. > Things that stuck out to me > > Real quickly before I head into a few, brief points, I should note > that this survey wasn't widely broadcasted. I posted to the g.d.o > front page and spread the word on Twitter. Since it was not a well- > planned survey I didn't feel like I should do a front post on > Drupal.org. I plan for future surveys to be more thought out and get > wider exposure. Just over half the responses were from people with > over 2 years of Drupal experience, so the numbers may look a bit > lopsided. That said, I found it interesting that just because people > have been around for a while does not necessarily mean that they > have any better grasp on what the doc team is about or how they can > get involved. > It is no surprise that people who are newer to Drupal don't feel as > qualified to help with documentation. I think many of us know this > anyway, but this is a major assumption that I want to change this > year. New users are a critical piece to good documentation and we > need to encourage more people to engage sooner, before they get > "Drupalized." > Aside from folks not feeling that they know Drupal "well enough," > other common blockers for folks were language or time. Again, not > terribly surprising but areas I'd like to chip away at as well. > There were definitely a lot of responses where people want to help > but can't see a clear, simple way to get started, or something that > doesn't end up consuming too much time. Coming up with more straight- > forward directions for helping with docs is a high priority for me > right now and I hope that the doc sprints I am attending, chatting > with all sorts of people about docs, will help clarify this. > Another interesting thing was that percentage-wise there was a > roughly consitent number of folks across all experience levels who > weren't sure if they were on the doc team or not. Since we opened > the handbook last year, we have been trying to redefine what the > "doc team" means and I dare say we aren't doing a horribly good job > right now. The general idea is that there is no special team you > need to join with fancy site permissions to be on the team. One > thing that has done though, I think, is maybe blurred it so much > that people aren't really sure where lines of authority or access are. > So, these are some quick thoughts but I invite everyone to look > through the results themselves and continue this conversation. I did > a few basic charts, which may or may not be useful (but they look > perrrty ;-)). There are two CSV files attached as well, results-doc- > survey.csv is the raw data from the survey site, and basic-stats.csv > were the little mini tables I used to make the pie charts. (Note > that I did redact some personal info to maintain anonymity.) You > should be able to open the CSV files in most any spreadsheet > software, like Excel, Numbers, or OOo Calc. - Addi From shai at content2zero.com Wed Apr 15 07:44:08 2009 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:44:08 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Fwd: Documentation Team: 'Doc survey results' at groups.drupal.org In-Reply-To: <6151088C-BD4B-40AF-865D-2B418E9D2AEB@rocktreesky.com> References: <20090415003011.249DC16B4E4@www1.drupal.org> <6151088C-BD4B-40AF-865D-2B418E9D2AEB@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <9f68efb70904150044h15d96308vaa458392476f818b@mail.gmail.com> Addi and All, Great stuff. I left a comment on groups.drupal.org: http://groups.drupal.org/node/21339 Addi, by including "Public" in your audience for that post, you made it possible for folks to leave comments, as I just did. But the intro to the docs d.g.o group still says it is read-only? Is this a first step towards opening up the docs g.d.o. group? Or did you select the "Public" "audience" box by accident? (That "audience" feature is one of the most powerful and confusing features of Organic Groups!) Shai On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > add1sun has posted a Discussion at http://groups.drupal.org/node/21339 >> > (To see the charts and find the attachements, go to the g.d.o post.) > > >> Doc survey results >> --------------- >> A few weeks ago I put up a quick survey about Drupal docs. It was very >> "by-the-seat-of-my-pants" but I just wanted to start getting a feel for >> where people are coming from and give the community an opportunity to talk >> about docs. It wasn't scientific and it wasn't even a "good" survey. I am >> definitely not a survey expert. Luckily some folks have volunteered to help >> me make future surveys better, but I'm still happy with what I learned from >> this one. I wanted to share some basic stuff that I found interesting from >> the responses. I don't have a lot of time to tinker with stats and such and >> I've also attached the results in a CSV file so anyone else that wants to >> play with them, can have fun. My main interest in this survey was to read >> what people would say about docs when given an anonymous text box and how >> people think of Drupal docs. OK, so anyway, here are the goods.... >> > > As a reminder, here are the 5 questions: >> 1. How long have you been using Drupal? >> 2. Are you a member of the Drupal documentation team? >> 3. Do you feel that you have the skills or meet the requirements to help >> with Drupal documentation? If not, please explain what skills or >> requirements you feel are needed. >> 4. In what ways have you contributed to Drupal documentation? >> - Edited existing documentation on Drupal.org >> - Wrote new handbook page(s) on Drupal.org >> - Wrote or edited help text in Drupal core >> - Provided a patch for API documentation (api.drupal.org) >> - Created an issue in the Documentation issue queue >> - Participated in a Drupal documentation meeting or sprint >> - Participated in a documentation mailing list discussion >> - Created documentation made available on a site other than the Drupal.org >> sites >> - I have not contributed to Drupal documentation >> - Other (with room to explain) >> 5. Please feel free to share any thoughts you have about about the Drupal >> documentation team and the maintenance of Drupal documentation. >> > > Things that stuck out to me >> >> Real quickly before I head into a few, brief points, I should note that >> this survey wasn't widely broadcasted. I posted to the g.d.o front page and >> spread the word on Twitter. Since it was not a well-planned survey I didn't >> feel like I should do a front post on Drupal.org. I plan for future surveys >> to be more thought out and get wider exposure. Just over half the responses >> were from people with over 2 years of Drupal experience, so the numbers may >> look a bit lopsided. That said, I found it interesting that just because >> people have been around for a while does not necessarily mean that they have >> any better grasp on what the doc team is about or how they can get involved. >> It is no surprise that people who are newer to Drupal don't feel as >> qualified to help with documentation. I think many of us know this anyway, >> but this is a major assumption that I want to change this year. New users >> are a critical piece to good documentation and we need to encourage more >> people to engage sooner, before they get "Drupalized." >> > > Aside from folks not feeling that they know Drupal "well enough," other >> common blockers for folks were language or time. Again, not terribly >> surprising but areas I'd like to chip away at as well. There were definitely >> a lot of responses where people want to help but can't see a clear, simple >> way to get started, or something that doesn't end up consuming too much >> time. Coming up with more straight-forward directions for helping with docs >> is a high priority for me right now and I hope that the doc sprints I am >> attending, chatting with all sorts of people about docs, will help clarify >> this. >> > > Another interesting thing was that percentage-wise there was a roughly >> consitent number of folks across all experience levels who weren't sure if >> they were on the doc team or not. Since we opened the handbook last year, we >> have been trying to redefine what the "doc team" means and I dare say we >> aren't doing a horribly good job right now. The general idea is that there >> is no special team you need to join with fancy site permissions to be on the >> team. One thing that has done though, I think, is maybe blurred it so much >> that people aren't really sure where lines of authority or access are. >> > > So, these are some quick thoughts but I invite everyone to look through >> the results themselves and continue this conversation. I did a few basic >> charts, which may or may not be useful (but they look perrrty ;-)). There >> are two CSV files attached as well, results-doc-survey.csv is the raw data >> from the survey site, and basic-stats.csv were the little mini tables I used >> to make the pie charts. (Note that I did redact some personal info to >> maintain anonymity.) You should be able to open the CSV files in most any >> spreadsheet software, like Excel, Numbers, or OOo Calc. >> > > - Addi > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Apr 15 12:00:46 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:00:46 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Fwd: Documentation Team: 'Doc survey results' at groups.drupal.org In-Reply-To: <9f68efb70904150044h15d96308vaa458392476f818b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090415003011.249DC16B4E4@www1.drupal.org> <6151088C-BD4B-40AF-865D-2B418E9D2AEB@rocktreesky.com> <9f68efb70904150044h15d96308vaa458392476f818b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I did indeed leave the comments open. I do hope that once g.d.o is upgraded to D6, that we will be able to get mail2web on g.d.o and finally be able to open the group. Until then, I occasionally forget to close comments, or sometimes I just feel like it is an unnecessary hoop to make people join the list if they want comment on something that isn't earth shattering. I suppose I could rightly be taken to task for this, but I find the restrictions of a closed docs group to be a real pain in my ass most of the time, for little benefit. (Just as a note, all of the posts are "public", to stop commenting I manually disable comments per post.) - Addi On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Shai Gluskin wrote: > Addi and All, > > Great stuff. I left a comment on groups.drupal.org: http://groups.drupal.org/node/21339 > > Addi, by including "Public" in your audience for that post, you made > it possible for folks to leave comments, as I just did. But the > intro to the docs d.g.o group still says it is read-only? > > Is this a first step towards opening up the docs g.d.o. group? Or > did you select the "Public" "audience" box by accident? (That > "audience" feature is one of the most powerful and confusing > features of Organic Groups!) > > Shai > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Addison Berry > wrote: > add1sun has posted a Discussion at http://groups.drupal.org/node/21339 > (To see the charts and find the attachements, go to the g.d.o post.) > > > Doc survey results > --------------- > A few weeks ago I put up a quick survey about Drupal docs. It was > very "by-the-seat-of-my-pants" but I just wanted to start getting a > feel for where people are coming from and give the community an > opportunity to talk about docs. It wasn't scientific and it wasn't > even a "good" survey. I am definitely not a survey expert. Luckily > some folks have volunteered to help me make future surveys better, > but I'm still happy with what I learned from this one. I wanted to > share some basic stuff that I found interesting from the responses. > I don't have a lot of time to tinker with stats and such and I've > also attached the results in a CSV file so anyone else that wants to > play with them, can have fun. My main interest in this survey was to > read what people would say about docs when given an anonymous text > box and how people think of Drupal docs. OK, so anyway, here are the > goods.... > > As a reminder, here are the 5 questions: > 1. How long have you been using Drupal? > 2. Are you a member of the Drupal documentation team? > 3. Do you feel that you have the skills or meet the requirements to > help with Drupal documentation? If not, please explain what skills > or requirements you feel are needed. > 4. In what ways have you contributed to Drupal documentation? > - Edited existing documentation on Drupal.org > - Wrote new handbook page(s) on Drupal.org > - Wrote or edited help text in Drupal core > - Provided a patch for API documentation (api.drupal.org) > - Created an issue in the Documentation issue queue > - Participated in a Drupal documentation meeting or sprint > - Participated in a documentation mailing list discussion > - Created documentation made available on a site other than the > Drupal.org sites > - I have not contributed to Drupal documentation > - Other (with room to explain) > 5. Please feel free to share any thoughts you have about about the > Drupal documentation team and the maintenance of Drupal documentation. > > Things that stuck out to me > > Real quickly before I head into a few, brief points, I should note > that this survey wasn't widely broadcasted. I posted to the g.d.o > front page and spread the word on Twitter. Since it was not a well- > planned survey I didn't feel like I should do a front post on > Drupal.org. I plan for future surveys to be more thought out and get > wider exposure. Just over half the responses were from people with > over 2 years of Drupal experience, so the numbers may look a bit > lopsided. That said, I found it interesting that just because people > have been around for a while does not necessarily mean that they > have any better grasp on what the doc team is about or how they can > get involved. > It is no surprise that people who are newer to Drupal don't feel as > qualified to help with documentation. I think many of us know this > anyway, but this is a major assumption that I want to change this > year. New users are a critical piece to good documentation and we > need to encourage more people to engage sooner, before they get > "Drupalized." > > Aside from folks not feeling that they know Drupal "well enough," > other common blockers for folks were language or time. Again, not > terribly surprising but areas I'd like to chip away at as well. > There were definitely a lot of responses where people want to help > but can't see a clear, simple way to get started, or something that > doesn't end up consuming too much time. Coming up with more straight- > forward directions for helping with docs is a high priority for me > right now and I hope that the doc sprints I am attending, chatting > with all sorts of people about docs, will help clarify this. > > Another interesting thing was that percentage-wise there was a > roughly consitent number of folks across all experience levels who > weren't sure if they were on the doc team or not. Since we opened > the handbook last year, we have been trying to redefine what the > "doc team" means and I dare say we aren't doing a horribly good job > right now. The general idea is that there is no special team you > need to join with fancy site permissions to be on the team. One > thing that has done though, I think, is maybe blurred it so much > that people aren't really sure where lines of authority or access are. > > So, these are some quick thoughts but I invite everyone to look > through the results themselves and continue this conversation. I did > a few basic charts, which may or may not be useful (but they look > perrrty ;-)). There are two CSV files attached as well, results-doc- > survey.csv is the raw data from the survey site, and basic-stats.csv > were the little mini tables I used to make the pie charts. (Note > that I did redact some personal info to maintain anonymity.) You > should be able to open the CSV files in most any spreadsheet > software, like Excel, Numbers, or OOo Calc. > > - Addi > -- > 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: From mgparisi at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 27 20:38:47 2009 From: mgparisi at rochester.rr.com (Mike Parisi) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:38:47 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Proposal of HandBook and CVS documentation changes! Message-ID: I know this post wont be perfect, and I don't mean to insult anyone. If I do its completely unintentional and due to a statement that was probably a bit skewed. I have been beating my head over CVS for MONTHS. Partially because the documentation is scattered and not organized. Often times you read a document and it mentions allot of specifics (But not all) about CVS. What you need is missing, for example a major document on CVS contribute does not contain other CVS utilities, while these are located in another section of the site. This leaves the reader feeling empty and also leaves us not looking elsewhere. This also bloats pages so that users feel daunted by the tasks required. I propose a major change in the structure of these sections for many reasons. The most prominent one is that the information is scattered across 3 separate area's! http://drupal.org/node/10259 http://drupal.org/node/7765 http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs I think that many of these pages are bloated duplicate information and thus are not read! This is evident in the http://drupal.org/cvs-application/requirements contains the following statement: "If you just scrolled down this page to the apply link and didn't read the page, don't expect to get a CVS account. It seems many people are doing just that and submitting poor motivation messages resulting in a high decline rate." Well this is probably because people can not find the information they need, and the page contains everything from CVS information to Coding Standards information. I will fix a few problems I have found with the current structure, but this is very complex set of documentation with allot of overlapping information and unclear navigation. One proposal is that much of the information should (or is) included in the http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs, and removed from the handbook. Instead a sub page in the handbook that specifically talks about CVS and Coding Standards should be added to the handbook. That adds a quick over-view of why CVS and Coding Standards and where to find the information needed. It is important Finding the documents is confounded because Druplicons "cvs?" command is unclear at best and does not include all three links above. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drupal at rocktreesky.com Mon Apr 27 21:07:14 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:07:14 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Proposal of HandBook and CVS documentation changes! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, this stuff has been in need of a "do-over" for a while generally. I will say though that these *were* more consolidated when the Getting Involved book was created. I have reverted the moves that have happened since then to re-consolidate them, for the time-being. That is, I have moved Drupal and CVS back to the Getting Involved guide, and I moved the Start/Maintain a Module back under the Contribute Code section. We definitely have some large architectural issues in the handbook and we also do not have any clear way to "control" it, even if we set it, since different people see things being organized in different ways and we have no restrictions on book organizational changes at the moment. I would ask that folks hold off making big location changes in the documentation for the time-being, unless it is discussed on the list or in an issue in the doc queue first, with broad consensus that it "just makes sense." The reason for this is that I will be making a really big announcement in the next two weeks about the overall docs roadmap and one of the biggest pieces of that will be the IA (information architecture) of all Drupal docs. We have an IA person who has volunteered to lead the project (and everyone will be encouraged to be a part of it). Once we get some preliminary stuff taken care of and I can articulate all of this stuff in a meaningful way about how we can move forward, I'll be posting to the doc list and then making a front page post on Drupal.org. Mike, thanks for bringing this up, as it is very important and something we need to really figure out a long-term solution for, so I hope you will keep digging in to this and giving us feedback. Thanks all :-) Addi On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Mike Parisi wrote: > I know this post wont be perfect, and I don?t mean to insult > anyone. If I do its completely unintentional and due to a statement > that was probably a bit skewed. > > I have been beating my head over CVS for MONTHS. Partially because > the documentation is scattered and not organized. Often times you > read a document and it mentions allot of specifics (But not all) > about CVS. What you need is missing, for example a major document > on CVS contribute does not contain other CVS utilities, while these > are located in another section of the site. This leaves the reader > feeling empty and also leaves us not looking elsewhere. This also > bloats pages so that users feel daunted by the tasks required. > > I propose a major change in the structure of these sections for many > reasons. The most prominent one is that the information is > scattered across 3 separate area's! > > http://drupal.org/node/10259 > http://drupal.org/node/7765 > http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs > > I think that many of these pages are bloated duplicate information > and thus are not read! This is evident in the http://drupal.org/cvs-application/requirements > contains the following statement: > > "If you just scrolled down this page to the apply link and didn't > read the page, don't expect to get a CVS account. It seems many > people are doing just that and submitting poor motivation messages > resulting in a high decline rate." > > Well this is probably because people can not find the information > they need, and the page contains everything from CVS information to > Coding Standards information. I will fix a few problems I have > found with the current structure, but this is very complex set of > documentation with allot of overlapping information and unclear > navigation. > > One proposal is that much of the information should (or is) included > in the http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs, and removed from the > handbook. Instead a sub page in the handbook that specifically > talks about CVS and Coding Standards should be added to the > handbook. That adds a quick over-view of why CVS and Coding > Standards and where to find the information needed. It is important > > Finding the documents is confounded because Druplicons "cvs?" > command is unclear at best and does not include all three links above. > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgparisi at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 27 22:02:05 2009 From: mgparisi at rochester.rr.com (Mike Parisi) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:02:05 -0400 Subject: [documentation] Proposal of HandBook and CVS documentationchanges! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Going through these documents, I can find allot of "out of scope" information. I think we can trim out this information to make these documents shorter. People don?t want to read long documents, and do not. Please see http://drupal.org/node/446654#comment-1526984 for an example of were I think this is pushing the limits of what is in scope. In fact allot of this information has nothing to do with CVS access at all! This document maybe moved, but it wont ever be deleted. It needs allot of attention and the hand of a true writer. It is clear that there is some frustration over the application process for CVS access. That people are not reading it all. Yet bloating the document makes things worse, not better. We need the best of the best of the Doc Team to come in and re-do this. A good writer will say more in less words. I tend to try and write more to cover all aspects of a topic. Thus I tend to bloat a document to include things that maybe obvious to others. In the end, the person maintaining CVS access will always get bad CVS requests. I feel this is a crucial area of Drupal that requires a person who has a very patient attitude. Getting people to Contrib. is probably one of the most important aspects of the website and community. I will ask that I am not apart of the people who review's these requests because I know I have the patience of a (thinking of some analogy)... Spitting Cobra! A-HA! Mike From: Addison Berry Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 5:07 PM To: A list for documentation writers Subject: Re: [documentation] Proposal of HandBook and CVS documentationchanges! Yeah, this stuff has been in need of a "do-over" for a while generally. I will say though that these *were* more consolidated when the Getting Involved book was created. I have reverted the moves that have happened since then to re-consolidate them, for the time-being. That is, I have moved Drupal and CVS back to the Getting Involved guide, and I moved the Start/Maintain a Module back under the Contribute Code section. We definitely have some large architectural issues in the handbook and we also do not have any clear way to "control" it, even if we set it, since different people see things being organized in different ways and we have no restrictions on book organizational changes at the moment. I would ask that folks hold off making big location changes in the documentation for the time-being, unless it is discussed on the list or in an issue in the doc queue first, with broad consensus that it "just makes sense." The reason for this is that I will be making a really big announcement in the next two weeks about the overall docs roadmap and one of the biggest pieces of that will be the IA (information architecture) of all Drupal docs. We have an IA person who has volunteered to lead the project (and everyone will be encouraged to be a part of it). Once we get some preliminary stuff taken care of and I can articulate all of this stuff in a meaningful way about how we can move forward, I'll be posting to the doc list and then making a front page post on Drupal.org. Mike, thanks for bringing this up, as it is very important and something we need to really figure out a long-term solution for, so I hope you will keep digging in to this and giving us feedback. Thanks all :-) Addi On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Mike Parisi wrote: I know this post wont be perfect, and I don?t mean to insult anyone. If I do its completely unintentional and due to a statement that was probably a bit skewed. I have been beating my head over CVS for MONTHS. Partially because the documentation is scattered and not organized. Often times you read a document and it mentions allot of specifics (But not all) about CVS. What you need is missing, for example a major document on CVS contribute does not contain other CVS utilities, while these are located in another section of the site. This leaves the reader feeling empty and also leaves us not looking elsewhere. This also bloats pages so that users feel daunted by the tasks required. I propose a major change in the structure of these sections for many reasons. The most prominent one is that the information is scattered across 3 separate area's! http://drupal.org/node/10259 http://drupal.org/node/7765 http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs I think that many of these pages are bloated duplicate information and thus are not read! This is evident in the http://drupal.org/cvs-application/requirements contains the following statement: "If you just scrolled down this page to the apply link and didn't read the page, don't expect to get a CVS account. It seems many people are doing just that and submitting poor motivation messages resulting in a high decline rate." Well this is probably because people can not find the information they need, and the page contains everything from CVS information to Coding Standards information. I will fix a few problems I have found with the current structure, but this is very complex set of documentation with allot of overlapping information and unclear navigation. One proposal is that much of the information should (or is) included in the http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs, and removed from the handbook. Instead a sub page in the handbook that specifically talks about CVS and Coding Standards should be added to the handbook. That adds a quick over-view of why CVS and Coding Standards and where to find the information needed. It is important Finding the documents is confounded because Druplicons "cvs?" command is unclear at best and does not include all three links above. -- 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: