From drupal at rocktreesky.com Sat Jan 3 02:02:37 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:02:37 -0500 Subject: [documentation] January Docs Challenge References: <20090103013027.7297616B4E7@www1.drupal.org> Message-ID: <5BF18B30-B744-4E14-8B01-4FA5A1377A63@rocktreesky.com> For those that don't follow the Planet: > add1sun has posted a Discussion at http://groups.drupal.org/node/17890 > > January Docs Challenge > --------------- > For 2009, I'm setting up monthly "Docs challenges" which I invite > everyone to join in on. For the month of January I want to do a bit > of house-cleaning on the documentation issue queue. I've got a blog > post up on my personal blog for the details: http://rocktreesky.com/docs-challenge-january-tending-queue > . If you wanted to jump in but were never quite sure how/where/what, > feel free to stop by on IRC or leave comments on my blog post. From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 7 14:53:30 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:53:30 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Schedule the January IRC meeting References: <20090107145016.1B3F416B544@www1.drupal.org> Message-ID: <476AB32E-01C0-40B6-BBAC-1EDD6192C717@rocktreesky.com> > add1sun has posted a Discussion at http://groups.drupal.org/node/18013 > > Schedule the January IRC meeting > --------------- > Hey all, now that the holidays are winding down, let's kick off the > new docs year with a quick meeting to get back on track. I have a > Doodle set up to pick a date/time: http://www.doodle.com/participation.html?pollId=9g5emhds789nskhp > I'd also like to discuss setting up a "regular" meeting time since > it seems that the Doodle often comes back with the same general > preference and I'd like to have at least one meeting a month this > year. From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 7 15:16:37 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:16:37 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" Message-ID: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> Some of you may have seen some recent issues where I have started "redefining" the docs team. Basically now that we have open editing, everyone with a d.o account is on the "docs team" as far as I'm concerned and I'd like to start phrasing it that way. We have also removed a number of people from the "documentation maintainer" role on d.o if they hadn't made any edits in a while since it just isn't really necessary for most docs work anymore. In one of the issues, Boris started editing the Join page (http://drupal.org/contribute/documentation/join ) to define things a bit better and I went ahead and did a bunch more edits on that and other docs pages to make it clearer that everyone can help with docs and that being "on the team" means more responsibility and commitment. I have been denying recent requests to join the team, explaining how much they can already do, and would now like to see people give specific reasons to be added to the elevated privileges of maintainer. I'd just like to do more in the way of review of the work they have done and see if they have gotten a feel for how d.o, the community and the docs work before adding privileges. The people who do have these elevated rights, I'd like to put in the more "correct" light (IMHO) of being the "maintainers" that the role states, or even calling them "docs admins." Currently the docs admins don't have a ton of elevated rights, but they can access the Documentation input format (which allows images and tables) and they have the ability to revert changes on the Revisions tab. In addition, once we sort out the specifics of controlling placement of new pages in the handbooks, that will be an admin task as well. As we head down the road of the redesign there may be other things that we'd like to have limited access to as well. I guess I'd like the d.o community to be our "docs team" and the folks that do extra work and have higher access would be the "docs admins." If we notice someone doing a bang up job we can invite them to become an admin and, of course, anyone can still request, we'll just look things over a bit more. So, what do you think? - Addi From pwgdarchive at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 16:52:42 2009 From: pwgdarchive at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benjamin_Melan=E7on?=) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:52:42 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <1406bb8f0901070852y740ffean29bf34bd99564bcd@mail.gmail.com> I think it's a good plan. From pratul at pratul.in Wed Jan 7 17:17:32 2009 From: pratul at pratul.in (Pratul Kalia) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:47:32 +0530 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: <1406bb8f0901070852y740ffean29bf34bd99564bcd@mail.gmail.com> References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <1406bb8f0901070852y740ffean29bf34bd99564bcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Neat enough as I see it. After all, "open source documentation doesn't have to suck always." :-) -- Incoming! - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 dum vivimus, vivamus. http://pratul.in From emmajane at xtrinsic.com Wed Jan 7 17:21:20 2009 From: emmajane at xtrinsic.com (Emma Jane Hogbin) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:21:20 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> Addison Berry wrote: > I guess I'd like the d.o community to be our "docs team" and the folks > that do extra work and have higher access would be the "docs admins." > If we notice someone doing a bang up job we can invite them to become > an admin and, of course, anyone can still request, we'll just look > things over a bit more. People are joiners. They like to be on teams. I wonder if it will feel like it's enough to automatically have a d.o account and be on the docs team? I love that everyone is automatically on the team; and I also like using "admin" to signify "moar powah." But I think people will continue to ask to be "part of the team" unless there's some kind of shiny button they can push to self-promote. What about modifying the profile for documentation so that instead of, "I contributed Drupal documentation" it says, "I participate on the Documentation Team." Or something like that? regards, emma -- Emma Jane Hogbin ph. (519) 371-2665 e. emma at hicktech.com - web. www.hicktech.com From pratul at pratul.in Wed Jan 7 18:00:35 2009 From: pratul at pratul.in (Pratul Kalia) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 23:30:35 +0530 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote: > I love that everyone is automatically on the team; and I also like using > "admin" to signify "moar powah." But I think people will continue to ask > to be "part of the team" unless there's some kind of shiny button they > can push to self-promote. What about modifying the profile for > documentation so that instead of, "I contributed Drupal documentation" > it says, "I participate on the Documentation Team." Or something like that? Hmm, sounds nicer! In fact, the page http://drupal.org/documentation-team shows 232 people currently. In my opinion as I see it, we chould change that list to Docs Admins and prune it down to the people that have 'admin' access. The rest of the people on d.o already have basic access to edit the documentation pages. They are already a part of the happy Docs family :-) Those people can display "I contribute to Drupal documentation" or something, as Emma Jane rightly put it. That way I think we won't lose that i-am-on-a-team feeling. cheers pratul -- Incoming! - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 dum vivimus, vivamus. http://pratul.in From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 7 18:06:13 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:06:13 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> Message-ID: Ok, so we define the "docs team" as anyone who actually contributed to docs in some way. ;-) So if you want to be "on the team" you need to edit/create docs. In that respect, this: http://drupal.org/node/14205 and this: http://drupal.org/node/263594, is our docs team. I've no problem changing the wording of the profile linky. On a side note, I'd like to just consolidate the "contributor" and "editor" pages into one list. Having them separate isn't terribly useful to me. We should also note that right now, the numbers printed after the names of contributors are pretty much inaccurate and useless, so I'd like to remove them. I think one page that lists everyone (create and edit0 is fine. If we want a number for ranking, we can use one number indicating the number of handbook pages "touched," whether it be initial creation or editing, with only one touch per page (as in, no "I made 5 minor edits to one page so I get 5 credits." - you just get 1 credit per page). - Addi On Jan 7, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote: > Addison Berry wrote: >> I guess I'd like the d.o community to be our "docs team" and the >> folks >> that do extra work and have higher access would be the "docs admins." >> If we notice someone doing a bang up job we can invite them to become >> an admin and, of course, anyone can still request, we'll just look >> things over a bit more. > > People are joiners. They like to be on teams. I wonder if it will feel > like it's enough to automatically have a d.o account and be on the > docs > team? > > I love that everyone is automatically on the team; and I also like > using > "admin" to signify "moar powah." But I think people will continue to > ask > to be "part of the team" unless there's some kind of shiny button they > can push to self-promote. What about modifying the profile for > documentation so that instead of, "I contributed Drupal documentation" > it says, "I participate on the Documentation Team." Or something > like that? > > > > regards, > emma > > -- > Emma Jane Hogbin > ph. (519) 371-2665 > e. emma at hicktech.com - web. www.hicktech.com > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 7 18:08:56 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:08:56 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> Message-ID: <56EC5A73-9FB0-4FB4-9B03-A1A36C2F7FDA@rocktreesky.com> On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Pratul Kalia wrote: >> > Hmm, sounds nicer! In fact, the page > http://drupal.org/documentation-team shows 232 people currently. In my > opinion as I see it, we chould change that list to Docs Admins and > prune it down to the people that have 'admin' access. The 232 on that page *are* the pruned down "admin" group. The list of all contributors are http://drupal.org/node/14205 and http://drupal.org/node/263594 . And yes, we can change the working on all of these list pages to point out this new definition of things... once folks agree. :-) - Addi From esmerel at logrus.com Wed Jan 7 19:34:48 2009 From: esmerel at logrus.com (Lynette) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:34:48 -0800 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> Message-ID: <496503D8.8050208@logrus.com> > touch per page (as in, no "I made 5 minor edits to one page so I get 5 > credits." - you just get 1 credit per page). Darnit, there goes my plan to take over the top spot on the list! OK, really, I like it better because when I edit, I tend to make a couple of changes, save it, make a couple more changes.. or I'll do something dumb like screw up a hyperlink. So that means multiple edits. I also agree with merging editor and contributor lists - there's been plenty of times I've seen people go through and rewrite entire sections of pages or add chunks (I know I have) and there's a point where that's no longer 'editing', it's *contributing* new work. I've never made a new page, but I've added paragraphs to pages. :) And anyone who really wants to see the changes made can go look around and find them anyway. From emmajane at xtrinsic.com Wed Jan 7 20:43:01 2009 From: emmajane at xtrinsic.com (Emma Jane Hogbin) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:43:01 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> Message-ID: <496513D5.3040602@xtrinsic.com> Addison Berry wrote: > Ok, so we define the "docs team" as anyone who actually contributed to > docs in some way. ;-) So if you want to be "on the team" you need to > edit/create docs. In that respect, this: http://drupal.org/node/14205 > and this: http://drupal.org/node/263594, is our docs team. I've no > problem changing the wording of the profile linky. Love it. > On a side note, I'd like to just consolidate the "contributor" and > "editor" pages into one list. Having them separate isn't terribly +1 > useful to me. We should also note that right now, the numbers printed > after the names of contributors are pretty much inaccurate and > useless, so I'd like to remove them. I think one page that lists > everyone (create and edit0 is fine. If we want a number for ranking, > we can use one number indicating the number of handbook pages > "touched," whether it be initial creation or editing, with only one > touch per page (as in, no "I made 5 minor edits to one page so I get 5 > credits." - you just get 1 credit per page). Accurate numbers are always better. I'm also fine with the list being an alphabetical list for all contributors, and scrapping the numeric ranking. It can always be generated as a stat from time to time if need be. regards, emma -- Emma Jane Hogbin, B.Sc. Founder, xtrinsic phone: (519) 371-2665 web: www.xtrinsic.com From nan_wich at bellsouth.net Wed Jan 7 21:23:43 2009 From: nan_wich at bellsouth.net (Nancy Wichmann) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:23:43 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Addison Berry wrote: > the numbers printed after the names of contributors are pretty much > inaccurate and useless, so I'd like to remove them. Oh, boo hoo, I liked being number 2! It gives me something to put on my resume. From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 7 22:36:28 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:36:28 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: <496513D5.3040602@xtrinsic.com> References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> <496513D5.3040602@xtrinsic.com> Message-ID: On Jan 7, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote: > Accurate numbers are always better. I'm also fine with the list > being an > alphabetical list for all contributors, and scrapping the numeric > ranking. It can always be generated as a stat from time to time if > need be. OK, I've submitted an issue and a patch at http://drupal.org/node/ 355767. Basically it gets rid of the editor page and goes back to just a contributor page. That page just lists names of anyone who has created or edited a handbook page. It is ordered by most recent edits. ;-) So if you want to be at the top, keep up the good work. I also removed the lead text on the Maintainer page so we can edit that as we see fit without needing to do a patch to the module every time. That means we can still discuss/change wording as we go. - Addi From emma at hicktech.com Wed Jan 7 22:46:42 2009 From: emma at hicktech.com (Emma Jane Hogbin) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:46:42 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> <496513D5.3040602@xtrinsic.com> Message-ID: <496530D2.5070003@hicktech.com> Addison Berry wrote: > On Jan 7, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote: >> Accurate numbers are always better. I'm also fine with the list >> being an >> alphabetical list for all contributors, and scrapping the numeric >> ranking. It can always be generated as a stat from time to time if >> need be. > > OK, I've submitted an issue and a patch at http://drupal.org/node/ > 355767. Basically it gets rid of the editor page and goes back to just > a contributor page. That page just lists names of anyone who has > created or edited a handbook page. It is ordered by most recent > edits. ;-) So if you want to be at the top, keep up the good work. Awesome. :) Will it explain what the order is for the list? or maybe have a "last activity" time stamp instead of the count stuff? On reading the patch it just looks like names will be listed? > I also removed the lead text on the Maintainer page so we can edit > that as we see fit without needing to do a patch to the module every > time. That means we can still discuss/change wording as we go. Yay for editing without having to patch! :) regards, emma -- Emma Jane Hogbin ph. (519) 371-2665 e. emma at hicktech.com - web. www.hicktech.com From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 7 23:53:55 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:53:55 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Redefining the "docs team" In-Reply-To: <496530D2.5070003@hicktech.com> References: <396EC699-13E9-4207-8B11-CD60A635BACA@rocktreesky.com> <4964E490.90006@xtrinsic.com> <496513D5.3040602@xtrinsic.com> <496530D2.5070003@hicktech.com> Message-ID: <5733D195-16E6-4F36-9E64-8DC47A4E3046@rocktreesky.com> On Jan 7, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote: >>> >> >> OK, I've submitted an issue and a patch at http://drupal.org/node/ >> 355767. Basically it gets rid of the editor page and goes back to >> just >> a contributor page. That page just lists names of anyone who has >> created or edited a handbook page. It is ordered by most recent >> edits. ;-) So if you want to be at the top, keep up the good work. > > Awesome. :) Will it explain what the order is for the list? or maybe > have a "last activity" time stamp instead of the count stuff? On > reading > the patch it just looks like names will be listed? Yep, just names. We can edit the lead text on the page (not in the code, thankfully) to explain the sort order and anything else we want. :-) From drupal at rocktreesky.com Sat Jan 10 17:07:51 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:07:51 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Docs IRC meeting: Jan. 18 References: <20090110163020.4FAF816B545@www1.drupal.org> Message-ID: > add1sun has posted a Event at http://groups.drupal.org/node/18100 > > Docs IRC meeting: Jan. 18 > --------------- > We'll meet on IRC in #drupal-docs for one hour in Sunday, January 18 > at 2 pm EST (11 am PST, 19:00 GMT). Note that this meeting will > start right after the regularly scheduled January "challenge hour" > for that day. > Agenda: > Announcements > Issue queue and monthly challenges > Help system in core From drupal at rocktreesky.com Tue Jan 13 15:48:13 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:48:13 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Docs survey Message-ID: I'm beginning to work up a survey about Drupal documentation. I'd like to keep it pretty short and sweet and I intend to do several throughout the year on various topics related to docs. This one is to get a very general idea of who uses the docs, which docs they use and a bit about participation. I have a draft braindump for the survey at the end of this email. (Note that "if" questions will use skip logic, so they will only be presented with one following line of questions). A short explanation and a link to the survey will be posted on the front page of Drupal.org. Feedback on this and topics for other potential surveys are welcome. For actually running the survey, I'd rather not use SurveyMonkey. It is cool but also proprietary and I'd rather support open source. I don't really have the bandwidth for setting up webform/webform report modules or installing LimeSurvey, so I want to give LimeService a go. The nice thing about LimeService is it doesn't get into monthly fees (just based on usage) and we can do multi-lingual surveys. I think this first one, even though it has language questions on it, I'd rather stick to one survey in English. As we explore more multi- lingual needs for docs we can conduct a survey focused on that and use the feature at that point. - Addi DRAFT DOCUMENTATION SURVEY ================================================= How long have you been using/playing with Drupal? less than a month 1-6 months 6 months to 1 year 1-2 years 2+ years What roles do you take when working with Drupal? (check all that apply) End user Marketing/sales (selling Drupal to others) Site administrator (day to day maintenance) Site builder/architects (installation and putting the site together) Themer (create and/or customize the theme in code) Developer (write custom modules and tweaks) Other (describe what you do that we missed above) What forms of documentation about Drupal do you use? Drupal.org (including api.drupal.org) Published Drupal book(s) that you have purchased Drupal's built in help (in your Drupal site itself) Articles on various blogs/sites around the web (not Drupal.org) Company or organization internal documentation Other What is your native language? Chinese (any variety) English Spanish Hindi/Urdu Arabic Russian German French Italian Other If your native language is not English, do you use a native language Drupal resource? Yes No If yes, which resource(s) do you use? Drupal community website Drupal community IRC channel Published book(s) in your language Translated Drupal internal help (in your Drupal site) Other Do you currently help documentation efforts for Drupal (edit/create handbook pages, work in the docs issue queue, submit translations, etc.)? Yes No If yes, what tasks do you do? Edit handbook pages Create new handbook pages Provide transaltions (for core and/or contrib) Work on the Documentation issue queue Work on Drupal core issues related to documentation Write modules/patches for Documentation needs (Drupal.org customizations or contributed modules we use on d.o or for contrib) Take part in meetings, sprints and/or the mailing list discussions Other Of the tasks that you do, which is your favorite? Edit handbook pages Create new handbook pages Provide transaltions (for core and/or contrib) Work on the Documentation issue queue Work on Drupal core issues related to documentation Write modules/patches for Documentation needs (Drupal.org customizations or contributed modules we use on d.o or for contrib) Take part in meetings, sprints and/or the mailing list discussions Other Why? If no, why not? No time Not sure what to do Afraid you'll mess up Don't know English well enough Documentation is boring/lame Other Any thoughts about Drupal documentation you'd like to share? From pratul at pratul.in Tue Jan 13 16:06:16 2009 From: pratul at pratul.in (Pratul Kalia) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:36:16 +0530 Subject: [documentation] Docs survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > I'm beginning to work up a survey about Drupal documentation. I'd like > to keep it pretty short and sweet and I intend to do several > throughout the year on various topics related to docs. This one is to > get a very general idea of who uses the docs, which docs they use and > a bit about participation. I have a draft braindump for the survey at > the end of this email. (Note that "if" questions will use skip logic, > so they will only be presented with one following line of questions). > A short explanation and a link to the survey will be posted on the > front page of Drupal.org. Feedback on this and topics for other > potential surveys are welcome. > > For actually running the survey, I'd rather not use SurveyMonkey. It > is cool but also proprietary and I'd rather support open source. I > don't really have the bandwidth for setting up webform/webform report > modules or installing LimeSurvey, so I want to give LimeService a go. > The nice thing about LimeService is it doesn't get into monthly fees > (just based on usage) and we can do multi-lingual surveys. I think > this first one, even though it has language questions on it, I'd > rather stick to one survey in English. As we explore more multi- > lingual needs for docs we can conduct a survey focused on that and use > the feature at that point. > > - Addi > > DRAFT DOCUMENTATION SURVEY > ================================================= > > How long have you been using/playing with Drupal? > less than a month > 1-6 months > 6 months to 1 year > 1-2 years > 2+ years > > What roles do you take when working with Drupal? (check all that apply) > End user > Marketing/sales (selling Drupal to others) > Site administrator (day to day maintenance) > Site builder/architects (installation and putting the site together) > Themer (create and/or customize the theme in code) > Developer (write custom modules and tweaks) > Other (describe what you do that we missed above) > > What forms of documentation about Drupal do you use? > Drupal.org (including api.drupal.org) > Published Drupal book(s) that you have purchased > Drupal's built in help (in your Drupal site itself) > Articles on various blogs/sites around the web (not Drupal.org) > Company or organization internal documentation > Other > > What is your native language? > Chinese (any variety) > English > Spanish > Hindi/Urdu > Arabic > Russian > German > French > Italian > Other > > If your native language is not English, do you use a native language > Drupal resource? > Yes > No > > If yes, which resource(s) do you use? > Drupal community website > Drupal community IRC channel > Published book(s) in your language > Translated Drupal internal help (in your Drupal site) > Other > > Do you currently help documentation efforts for Drupal (edit/create > handbook pages, work in the docs issue queue, submit translations, > etc.)? > Yes > No > > If yes, what tasks do you do? > Edit handbook pages > Create new handbook pages > Provide transaltions (for core and/or contrib) > Work on the Documentation issue queue > Work on Drupal core issues related to documentation > Write modules/patches for Documentation needs (Drupal.org > customizations or contributed modules we use on d.o or for contrib) > Take part in meetings, sprints and/or the mailing list discussions > Other > > Of the tasks that you do, which is your favorite? > Edit handbook pages > Create new handbook pages > Provide transaltions (for core and/or contrib) > Work on the Documentation issue queue > Work on Drupal core issues related to documentation > Write modules/patches for Documentation needs (Drupal.org > customizations or contributed modules we use on d.o or for contrib) > Take part in meetings, sprints and/or the mailing list discussions > Other > > Why? > > > If no, why not? > No time > Not sure what to do > Afraid you'll mess up > Don't know English well enough > Documentation is boring/lame > Other > > Any thoughts about Drupal documentation you'd like to share? > Can't spend much time on this (busy :-( ) but one suggestion - Hindi/Urdu should be separated as Hindi and Urdu. They're not like the Chinese variations. cheers pratul -- Incoming! - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 dum vivimus, vivamus. http://pratul.in From emma at hicktech.com Tue Jan 13 21:13:16 2009 From: emma at hicktech.com (Emma Jane Hogbin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:13:16 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Docs survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496D03EC.3000708@hicktech.com> Addison Berry wrote: > DRAFT DOCUMENTATION SURVEY > ================================================= I would put the "contribution" questions into a second survey and include a question on "Can we follow up with additional surveys." Make it so short that people will always say yes to more surveys. :) It's like the theory on instructional videos: I don't have time for 30 minutes, but I do have 7 x 5 minutes. > What forms of documentation about Drupal do you use? > Drupal.org (including api.drupal.org) > Published Drupal book(s) that you have purchased > Drupal's built in help (in your Drupal site itself) > Articles on various blogs/sites around the web (not Drupal.org) > Company or organization internal documentation > Other Change to, "Which forms of documentation do you find MOST helpful." Add, "Which forms of documentation do you find LEAST helpful." > What is your native language? > Chinese (any variety) > English > Spanish > Hindi/Urdu > Arabic > Russian > German > French > Italian > Other Change to, "What is your preferred, or primary, language." > If your native language is not English, do you use a native language > Drupal resource? > Yes > No Same as previous question. > Any thoughts about Drupal documentation you'd like to share? > regards, emma -- Emma Jane Hogbin ph. (519) 371-2665 e. emma at hicktech.com - web. www.hicktech.com From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 14 01:37:49 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:37:49 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Docs survey In-Reply-To: <496D03EC.3000708@hicktech.com> References: <496D03EC.3000708@hicktech.com> Message-ID: On Jan 13, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote: > Addison Berry wrote: >> DRAFT DOCUMENTATION SURVEY >> ================================================= > > I would put the "contribution" questions into a second survey and > include a question on "Can we follow up with additional surveys." Make > it so short that people will always say yes to more surveys. :) It's > like the theory on instructional videos: I don't have time for 30 > minutes, but I do have 7 x 5 minutes. > Hm, my first reaction was "it's only a few more questions" but I can see the point of keeping contributions a discrete survey. I would like that information earlier rather than later in the year though so how often do folks think we can get away with surveys without being annoying? ;-) I wasn't sure if we should try capturing contact info for survey takers. I was just going to make it an open, anonymous survey, so "Can we do more" would be moot. If folks think it is worthwhile to ask for an email (not require) then we could ask something like "may we notify you about further surveys?" or some such. Thoughts? - Addi From shai at content2zero.com Thu Jan 15 04:54:00 2009 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:54:00 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Tool For Generating CVS Code for Checking Out Multiple Contrib Modules at Once Message-ID: <9f68efb70901142054l4602840eq17742675dcca24ba@mail.gmail.com> Hi Drupal Documenters Gang, http://content2zero.com/drupal-developer/cvstool/info I've created a handy-dandy (maybe "quick-and-dirty" is a better description :) tool for generating CVS code for the command line to checkout multiple contrib modules at once. If you register, you can use taxonomy and a views_bulk_operations view to create your own custom list of modules that you want to create CVS checkout code for in one click. Check it out: http://content2zero.com/drupal-developer/cvstool/info best, Shai Content2zero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20090114/91d0487e/attachment.htm From shai at content2zero.com Sun Jan 18 17:31:04 2009 From: shai at content2zero.com (Shai Gluskin) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:31:04 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Docs IRC meeting: Jan. 18 In-Reply-To: References: <20090110163020.4FAF816B545@www1.drupal.org> Message-ID: <9f68efb70901180931j3a72e848x323ee6884f053d67@mail.gmail.com> Hi Addi, I can't make the meeting today, unfortunately. I'll look forward to reading the notes. Shai On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Addison Berry wrote: > > > add1sun has posted a Event at http://groups.drupal.org/node/18100 > > > > Docs IRC meeting: Jan. 18 > > --------------- > > We'll meet on IRC in #drupal-docs for one hour in Sunday, January 18 > > at 2 pm EST (11 am PST, 19:00 GMT). Note that this meeting will > > start right after the regularly scheduled January "challenge hour" > > for that day. > > Agenda: > > Announcements > > Issue queue and monthly challenges > > Help system in core > > -- > 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/20090118/dc2aecc5/attachment.htm From g at 8vue.com Sun Jan 18 19:04:42 2009 From: g at 8vue.com (George) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:04:42 +0000 Subject: [documentation] Collecting Drupal presentations / videos / resources together in one sane place In-Reply-To: <49724B62.60506@8vue.com> References: <49724B62.60506@8vue.com> Message-ID: <49737D4A.2080602@8vue.com> I sent this out yesterday, but apparently it didn't make it, so here it is, and apologies if you get it twice. > Hi everyone, > > As I (George2) sit in the IRC channels, I sometimes hear about > webinars or slide presentations that I wouldn't have known about > otherwise. These are great resources for the Drupal community that > simply don't have the exposure they deserve. > > There are many excellent Drupal articles, presentations, videos etc > scattered about the internet that are time consuming to locate and > watch (if at all they are indexed), and as some overlap in content - > there are many for themeing for example - it could be a waste of time. > > So, I'd like to put together a site that collects these resources > together, but not a simple aggregation site as there are also some not > so excellent resources! Also, I think a simple RSS fed aggregation > site becomes too large, difficult to search, of varying quality, and > therefore pointless. > > Whether this site is to be a separate domain, or a subdomain on D.O is > unknown at this point. I can't currently see it fitting into the > current Drupal site, but with the redesign, who knows? (Hopefully > someone does!) > > I've already put forward a brief idea to the assoc about this, but I > wanted to bounce some ideas around, and ask for some ideas and help, > and webchick pointed me to this list (so blame her!) > > I'd like to have some sort of quality control, but I understand one > man's rubbish is another man's gold. However, we all know quality when > we see it. Should there be some sort of community voting? I'm not so > sure, I don't believe in +1, nor stars as these can be easily > manipulated, and people vote for different reasons, not just the > usefulness of the content involved. Maybe there should be a team of > people who say 'this goes whilst this stays'? Would you be interested > in helping out here? > > I'd also like to have some sort of way that people who want to > announce a live presentation / uploading of a seminar has completed, > and it can be added to the site in some sort of updates section for > everyone to see. I'd imagine this could be published as an RSS feed, > but as for aggregating the content, I'm not so sure. What do you think? > > Also, I'd like some sort of community to be built around the site to > encourage people coming back to the site, maybe to add their own > tuition videos, add new presentations, make requests maybe etc. I'd > like to encourage people to ask questions on the video, like in a > comments structure maybe, so that questions and answers are in a sane > place. And, to encourage video/slide makers to supply some notes to > fill in hte missing gaps. I have no idea what format to structure this > community around, so once again, ideas would be welcomed! > > Any other ideas you think would work for such a resource site? > > Ok, that's enough for now, thanks for the ears! > From john at noceda.net Wed Jan 21 04:06:36 2009 From: john at noceda.net (John Noceda) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:06:36 +0100 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component Message-ID: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> Since everyone are now members of the documentation team J, what do you guys think of changing the component "Join Documentation Team" to "Handbook Maintainer Application" or something to that effect? The word "maintainer" connotes responsibility. Users who doesn't know that they can edit pages already or just want to post images to their own posts may have second thoughts on applying to be a maintainer of the handbooks. Then hopefully we only get issues where they really want to take the responsibility of maintaining the handbooks. John (JohnNoc) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20090121/8b6df8ca/attachment.htm From drupal-docs at webchick.net Wed Jan 21 04:35:40 2009 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:35:40 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" Message-ID: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> Drupal core development involves the coordination of literally thousands of open issues, hundreds of contributors, and dozens of initiatives. It's been challenging to coordinate all of this, so I'm constantly on the hunt for ways to streamline the process. I'm sure the docs team can relate. ;) Tonight we were kicking around ideas about how to handle this situation and (with Addi's permission) created a new top-level handbook called "Community Initiatives": http://drupal.org/node/361842. The idea is that major efforts in the community (Drupal core, documentation, d.o redesign, etc. ) could create a series of sub-pages that explain to people who want to jump in where to do so. See (and sub-pages) http://drupal.org/node/361846 as an example of what I mean. Addi asked me to post here to get thoughts/impressions. So. Thoughts? Impressions? ;) -Angie From pratul at pratul.in Wed Jan 21 07:27:16 2009 From: pratul at pratul.in (Pratul Kalia) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:57:16 +0530 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > The idea is that major efforts in the community (Drupal core, > documentation, d.o redesign, etc. ) could create a series of sub-pages > that explain to people who want to jump in where to do so. See (and > sub-pages) http://drupal.org/node/361846 as an example of what I mean. Brilliant idea I see! But will this section be only for Drupal programming initiatives? Or more stuff as well? cheers pratul -- Incoming! - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 dum vivimus, vivamus. http://pratul.in From gabor at hojtsy.hu Wed Jan 21 09:18:36 2009 From: gabor at hojtsy.hu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Hojtsy?=) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:18:36 +0100 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> Message-ID: <86ca3ccb0901210118u66c11a6do293f176c0328ecb@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Angela Byron wrote: > Drupal core development involves the coordination of literally > thousands of open issues, hundreds of contributors, and dozens of > initiatives. It's been challenging to coordinate all of this, so I'm > constantly on the hunt for ways to streamline the process. I'm sure > the docs team can relate. ;) > > Tonight we were kicking around ideas about how to handle this > situation and (with Addi's permission) created a new top-level > handbook called "Community Initiatives": http://drupal.org/node/361842. > > The idea is that major efforts in the community (Drupal core, > documentation, d.o redesign, etc. ) could create a series of sub-pages > that explain to people who want to jump in where to do so. See (and > sub-pages) http://drupal.org/node/361846 as an example of what I mean. > > Addi asked me to post here to get thoughts/impressions. So. Thoughts? > Impressions? ;) Absolutely perfect timing! Yesterday I almost created subpages under the "About Drupal" section for the d.o redesing, but now you just created a better place for that :) We need to capture the decisions made, and the issues lying ahead. G?bor From pratul at pratul.in Wed Jan 21 11:25:02 2009 From: pratul at pratul.in (Pratul Kalia) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:55:02 +0530 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <86ca3ccb0901210118u66c11a6do293f176c0328ecb@mail.gmail.com> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <86ca3ccb0901210118u66c11a6do293f176c0328ecb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I suggest the menu "Community Initiatives" be expanded by default. On the first look, the page looks quite empty otherwise. cheers pratul -- Incoming! - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 dum vivimus, vivamus. http://pratul.in From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 21 13:49:42 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:49:42 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> Message-ID: <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:06 PM, John Noceda wrote: > Since everyone are now members of the documentation team J, what do > you guys think of changing the component ?Join Documentation Team? > to ?Handbook Maintainer Application? or something to that effect? > The word ?maintainer? connotes responsibility. Users who doesn?t > know that they can edit pages already or just want to post images to > their own posts may have second thoughts on applying to be a > maintainer of the handbooks. Then hopefully we only get issues where > they really want to take the responsibility of maintaining the > handbooks. Yep, good call. I guess the question is how we want to refer to the higher-responsibility role. I had orginally tossed out Documentation admins because maintainer didn't sound as "different." Everyone making edits is "maintaining" while administrators, well do more administrivia stuff. :-) Thoughts? Any other ideas to toss in the ring? - Addi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20090121/9b336aab/attachment.htm From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 21 14:02:47 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:02:47 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> Message-ID: <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> So one of the things we were discussing and wanted feedback on, is whether this should be its own top-level book that needs links from various corners to get to (i.e. it is currently not easily "discovered") or should we incorporate it into the Getting Involved book and, if so, how/where? On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:27 AM, Pratul Kalia wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Angela Byron > wrote: >> The idea is that major efforts in the community (Drupal core, >> documentation, d.o redesign, etc. ) could create a series of sub- >> pages >> that explain to people who want to jump in where to do so. See (and >> sub-pages) http://drupal.org/node/361846 as an example of what I >> mean. > > Brilliant idea I see! But will this section be only for Drupal > programming initiatives? Or more stuff as well? It can be used for any community initiatives that need a space to summarize and organize as it were. Things like the ongoing doc team projects would fit neatly in here. They just need to create a new top- level child page as a sibling to "Drupal core improvements". > > > > cheers > pratul > > -- > Incoming! > - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 > - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 > dum vivimus, vivamus. > http://pratul.in > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 21 14:06:23 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:06:23 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <86ca3ccb0901210118u66c11a6do293f176c0328ecb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <271FC37D-60D7-428D-A82D-5A081AF4594A@rocktreesky.com> On Jan 21, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Pratul Kalia wrote: > I suggest the menu "Community Initiatives" be expanded by default. On > the first look, the page looks quite empty otherwise. Well, ideally we will expand the text to explain what "community initiative" means more (e.g. not a roadmap), how/when you might add something to it and how to jump in. The last may sound weird but we tell people to "jump in" a lot but most people need a little more specific guidance on what that actually means before they will step in. This is also related to the question about whether this should be under the Getting Involved guide and such. - Addi From pinglaura at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 15:42:25 2009 From: pinglaura at gmail.com (Laura Scott) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:42:25 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 6:49 am, Addison Berry wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:06 PM, John Noceda wrote: > >> Since everyone are now members of the documentation team J, what do >> you guys think of changing the component ?Join Documentation Team? >> to ?Handbook Maintainer Application? or something to that effect? >> The word ?maintainer? connotes responsibility. Users who doesn?t >> know that they can edit pages already or just want to post images >> to their own posts may have second thoughts on applying to be a >> maintainer of the handbooks. Then hopefully we only get issues >> where they really want to take the responsibility of maintaining >> the handbooks. > > Yep, good call. I guess the question is how we want to refer to the > higher-responsibility role. I had orginally tossed out Documentation > admins because maintainer didn't sound as "different." Everyone > making edits is "maintaining" while administrators, well do more > administrivia stuff. :-) Thoughts? Any other ideas to toss in the > ring? Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? Laura -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20090121/1100ae23/attachment.htm From pinglaura at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 15:45:24 2009 From: pinglaura at gmail.com (Laura Scott) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:45:24 -0700 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <38253303-08D1-4EB1-B53B-593EB2240658@gmail.com> It almost sounds like this should be a view rather than just books hierarchy, since it could include time-frame-limited things, etc. Maybe it is a "dashboard" of embedded views of 2 or 3 different kinds things? It just seems like something requiring more relational connections rather than hierarchical burying. Laura On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 7:02 am, Addison Berry wrote: > So one of the things we were discussing and wanted feedback on, is > whether this should be its own top-level book that needs links from > various corners to get to (i.e. it is currently not easily > "discovered") or should we incorporate it into the Getting Involved > book and, if so, how/where? > > On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:27 AM, Pratul Kalia wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Angela Byron >> wrote: >>> The idea is that major efforts in the community (Drupal core, >>> documentation, d.o redesign, etc. ) could create a series of sub- >>> pages >>> that explain to people who want to jump in where to do so. See (and >>> sub-pages) http://drupal.org/node/361846 as an example of what I >>> mean. >> >> Brilliant idea I see! But will this section be only for Drupal >> programming initiatives? Or more stuff as well? > > It can be used for any community initiatives that need a space to > summarize and organize as it were. Things like the ongoing doc team > projects would fit neatly in here. They just need to create a new top- > level child page as a sibling to "Drupal core improvements". > >> >> >> >> cheers >> pratul >> >> -- >> Incoming! >> - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 >> - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 >> dum vivimus, vivamus. >> http://pratul.in >> -- >> 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 mroswell at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 16:22:04 2009 From: mroswell at gmail.com (Margie Roswell) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:22:04 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: The word "application" makes me think of software. On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Laura Scott wrote: > On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 6:49 am, Addison Berry wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:06 PM, John Noceda wrote: > > Since everyone are now members of the documentation team J, what do you > guys think of changing the component "Join Documentation Team" to "Handbook > Maintainer Application" or something to that effect? The word "maintainer" > connotes responsibility. Users who doesn't know that they can edit pages > already or just want to post images to their own posts may have second > thoughts on applying to be a maintainer of the handbooks. Then hopefully we > only get issues where they really want to take the responsibility of > maintaining the handbooks. > > > Yep, good call. I guess the question is how we want to refer to the > higher-responsibility role. I had orginally tossed out Documentation admins > because maintainer didn't sound as "different." Everyone making edits is > "maintaining" while administrators, well do more administrivia stuff. :-) > Thoughts? Any other ideas to toss in the ring? > > > Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? > > Laura > > > -- > 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/20090121/337269e2/attachment.htm From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 21 16:28:26 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:28:26 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <38253303-08D1-4EB1-B53B-593EB2240658@gmail.com> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> <38253303-08D1-4EB1-B53B-593EB2240658@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Laura Scott wrote: > It almost sounds like this should be a view rather than just books > hierarchy, since it could include time-frame-limited things, etc. > Maybe it is a "dashboard" of embedded views of 2 or 3 different kinds > things? It just seems like something requiring more relational > connections rather than hierarchical burying. > Yeah, I agree that figuring views into this would be nice and I still think that we need to take a real look at an "ideal" long-term solution. We also need to find a short-term solution that does *not* involve views though. We do not have Views enabled on d.o and it will not be until after the upgrade/redesign stuff, but Angie is in need of some sort of overarching way to organize things *now* and this seemed the handiest way to go. I did also raise the fact that we now have tags and wouldn't using the taxo lists for tags be one way to go, but Angie didn't like it because she wants to highlight only the "important" stuff. - Addi From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 21 16:30:34 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:30:34 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Laura Scott wrote: >> Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? Hm, well everyone on d.o can be an "editor." While some of us may think of a newspaper editor with higher power, the straight English usage is simply someone who edits, which is everyone. I'd like something that indicates a more managerial aspect. - Addi From gabor at hojtsy.hu Wed Jan 21 16:38:47 2009 From: gabor at hojtsy.hu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Hojtsy?=) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:38:47 +0100 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> <38253303-08D1-4EB1-B53B-593EB2240658@gmail.com> Message-ID: <86ca3ccb0901210838k2af3cc05y21c458ed5f0acc6f@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Addison Berry wrote: >> It almost sounds like this should be a view rather than just books >> hierarchy, since it could include time-frame-limited things, etc. >> Maybe it is a "dashboard" of embedded views of 2 or 3 different kinds >> things? It just seems like something requiring more relational >> connections rather than hierarchical burying. > > Yeah, I agree that figuring views into this would be nice and I still > think that we need to take a real look at an "ideal" long-term > solution. We also need to find a short-term solution that does *not* > involve views though. We do not have Views enabled on d.o and it will > not be until after the upgrade/redesign stuff, but Angie is in need of > some sort of overarching way to organize things *now* and this seemed > the handiest way to go. I did also raise the fact that we now have > tags and wouldn't using the taxo lists for tags be one way to go, but > Angie didn't like it because she wants to highlight only the > "important" stuff. We got to same / similar conclusions with the redesign / upgrade project planning. We can tag stuff, but in huge projects, such as these, we need a hierarchic, prioritized plan for what should happen. Therefore I've extended the drupal.org project filter, so if you use [#112233] (with the issue number), you'll get the status and the assigned user to the output already. From here, we can use this to build nested lists with annotations, images, etc for bigger project plans. This is all due to our project module lacking things like milestones, relative priority, project plans, etc, and they will not be implemented anytime soon (not that they should be). Flat views listing is not cutting it, since you cannot order stuff by relative priority (eg. an issue might be an important thing for implementing the map on the redesigned homepage, but the map on the redesigned homepage is not the highest priority overall). Tags don't provide a way for people to understand the process of implementing a big change in Drupal or on drupal.org, the order of them, cross-dependencies, etc. What we do because of the lack of higher project planning tools, milestones, etc. is a bit hackish, but looks like we prefer to use drupal.org then to use a third party, where these would be available, since here we can utilize our userbase, issue status data, etc, which we already have. G?bor From john at noceda.net Wed Jan 21 14:55:47 2009 From: john at noceda.net (John Noceda) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:55:47 +0100 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <002701c97bd8$58f4f250$0aded6f0$@net> The first thing that came to my mind upon seeing the section was "We have the 'Getting Involved' handbook for this". Didn't want to be negative on this great initiative in the beginning so I waited on more feedback by others. But now that Addi mentioned it, I think the "Community Initiatives" is better as a sub-section of that handbook. IMO, that handbook should be the place where people find ways to get involved. Haven't inspected the idea of incorporation thoroughly yet but at first glance, rewrite http://drupal.org/getting-involved landing page, have the "Community Initiatives" as one of the sub-pages of that (same level as the "give effective user support", "translating", "Talk with the community", etc.) as well as link to it in other appropriate handbook pages. I think it is more organized if it is not a top-level book. John (JohnNoc) -----Original Message----- From: documentation-bounces at drupal.org [mailto:documentation-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of Addison Berry Sent: 21. januar 2009 15:03 To: A list for documentation writers Subject: Re: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" So one of the things we were discussing and wanted feedback on, is whether this should be its own top-level book that needs links from various corners to get to (i.e. it is currently not easily "discovered") or should we incorporate it into the Getting Involved book and, if so, how/where? On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:27 AM, Pratul Kalia wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Angela Byron > > wrote: >> The idea is that major efforts in the community (Drupal core, >> documentation, d.o redesign, etc. ) could create a series of sub- >> pages that explain to people who want to jump in where to do so. See >> (and >> sub-pages) http://drupal.org/node/361846 as an example of what I >> mean. > > Brilliant idea I see! But will this section be only for Drupal > programming initiatives? Or more stuff as well? It can be used for any community initiatives that need a space to summarize and organize as it were. Things like the ongoing doc team projects would fit neatly in here. They just need to create a new top- level child page as a sibling to "Drupal core improvements". > > > > cheers > pratul > > -- > Incoming! > - OSScamp Pantnagar, 30 Jan - 1 Feb, 2009 > - Freed.in, 20 - 21 February, 2009 > dum vivimus, vivamus. > http://pratul.in > -- > 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 john at noceda.net Wed Jan 21 15:55:07 2009 From: john at noceda.net (John Noceda) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:55:07 +0100 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <000301c97be0$a2cd8b00$e868a100$@net> "Documentation Editors" and "Documentation Editing Team" mean every registered user on drupal.org, IMO Documentation Administrators? But the component "Documentation Administrator Application" is too long. Documentation Admin Application? Docs Administrator Application? Be a Documentation Administrator? Be a Docs Administrator? Be a Documentation Admin? Hmmm. John From: documentation-bounces at drupal.org [mailto:documentation-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of Laura Scott Sent: 21. januar 2009 16:42 To: A list for documentation writers Subject: Re: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 6:49 am, Addison Berry wrote: On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:06 PM, John Noceda wrote: Since everyone are now members of the documentation team J, what do you guys think of changing the component "Join Documentation Team" to "Handbook Maintainer Application" or something to that effect? The word "maintainer" connotes responsibility. Users who doesn't know that they can edit pages already or just want to post images to their own posts may have second thoughts on applying to be a maintainer of the handbooks. Then hopefully we only get issues where they really want to take the responsibility of maintaining the handbooks. Yep, good call. I guess the question is how we want to refer to the higher-responsibility role. I had orginally tossed out Documentation admins because maintainer didn't sound as "different." Everyone making edits is "maintaining" while administrators, well do more administrivia stuff. :-) Thoughts? Any other ideas to toss in the ring? Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? Laura -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20090121/ef96f769/attachment-0001.htm From pinglaura at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 17:57:36 2009 From: pinglaura at gmail.com (Laura Scott) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:57:36 -0700 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 9:30 am, Addison Berry wrote: > On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Laura Scott wrote: >>> Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? > > Hm, well everyone on d.o can be an "editor." While some of us may > think of a newspaper editor with higher power, the straight English > usage is simply someone who edits, which is everyone. I'd like > something that indicates a more managerial aspect. There it is then: Documentation Management Team. Laura From jimmydami at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 18:05:32 2009 From: jimmydami at gmail.com (Jim Li) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:05:32 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <507611440901211005w4f416d69k9ac2c7e5acf74f9f@mail.gmail.com> Why not just "documentatoin admin"? I think it's simple and straight-forward. On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 9:30 am, Addison Berry wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Laura Scott wrote: > >>> Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? > > > > Hm, well everyone on d.o can be an "editor." While some of us may > > think of a newspaper editor with higher power, the straight English > > usage is simply someone who edits, which is everyone. I'd like > > something that indicates a more managerial aspect. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20090121/3aa6f2be/attachment.htm From sepeck at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 19:54:48 2009 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:54:48 -0800 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: <507611440901211005w4f416d69k9ac2c7e5acf74f9f@mail.gmail.com> References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> <507611440901211005w4f416d69k9ac2c7e5acf74f9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Documentation Coordinator Reviewer Admin Administrator Editor Editing Team Overseer Squirrel Packmule Robot I just wanted to see them all together. :) Documentation Admin or Documentation Administrator would convey the role to me at least. On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Jim Li wrote: > Why not just "documentatoin admin"? I think it's simple and > straight-forward. > > >> On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 9:30 am, Addison Berry wrote: >> >> > On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Laura Scott wrote: >> >>> Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? >> > >> > Hm, well everyone on d.o can be an "editor." While some of us may >> > think of a newspaper editor with higher power, the straight English >> > usage is simply someone who edits, which is everyone. I'd like >> > something that indicates a more managerial aspect. >> >> > > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > From drupal at rocktreesky.com Wed Jan 21 20:03:09 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:03:09 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> <507611440901211005w4f416d69k9ac2c7e5acf74f9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: LOL, I totally vote for official "documentation squirrel" status. :-) On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > Documentation > Coordinator > Reviewer > Admin > Administrator > Editor > Editing Team > Overseer > Squirrel > Packmule > Robot > > I just wanted to see them all together. :) > > Documentation Admin or Documentation Administrator would convey the > role to me at least. > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Jim Li wrote: >> Why not just "documentatoin admin"? I think it's simple and >> straight-forward. >> >> >>> On Wednesday 21 January 2009, at 9:30 am, Addison Berry wrote: >>> >>>> On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Laura Scott wrote: >>>>>> Documentation Editors? Documentation Editing Team? >>>> >>>> Hm, well everyone on d.o can be an "editor." While some of us may >>>> think of a newspaper editor with higher power, the straight English >>>> usage is simply someone who edits, which is everyone. I'd like >>>> something that indicates a more managerial aspect. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 esmerel at logrus.com Wed Jan 21 23:34:11 2009 From: esmerel at logrus.com (Lynette) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:34:11 -0800 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> <507611440901211005w4f416d69k9ac2c7e5acf74f9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4977B0F3.1040108@logrus.com> That would certainly explain the packrat-ish state of some of the pages. ;) Or is it that we're just chock full of nuts? Addison Berry wrote: > LOL, I totally vote for official "documentation squirrel" status. :-) > > > On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > >> Documentation >> Coordinator >> Reviewer >> Admin >> Administrator >> Editor >> Editing Team >> Overseer >> Squirrel >> Packmule >> Robot >> >> I just wanted to see them all together. :) >> >> Documentation Admin or Documentation Administrator would convey the >> role to me at least. >> From drupal-docs at webchick.net Thu Jan 22 05:55:55 2009 From: drupal-docs at webchick.net (Angela Byron) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:55:55 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> Message-ID: On 20-Jan-09, at 11:35 PM, Angela Byron wrote: > Drupal core development involves the coordination of literally > thousands of open issues, hundreds of contributors, and dozens of > initiatives. It's been challenging to coordinate all of this, so I'm > constantly on the hunt for ways to streamline the process. I'm sure > the docs team can relate. ;) > > Tonight we were kicking around ideas about how to handle this > situation and (with Addi's permission) created a new top-level > handbook called "Community Initiatives": http://drupal.org/node/ > 361842. > > The idea is that major efforts in the community (Drupal core, > documentation, d.o redesign, etc. ) could create a series of sub-pages > that explain to people who want to jump in where to do so. See (and > sub-pages) http://drupal.org/node/361846 as an example of what I mean. > > Addi asked me to post here to get thoughts/impressions. So. Thoughts? > Impressions? ;) Thanks a lot for the feedback, folks! 1. I deliberately named this "Community Initiatives" and not "Developer Initiatives" or similar because I definitely *do* want this to be for organizing *any* kind of wide-spread community effort going on, from documentation to graphic design to usability to fundraising or whatever. I merely filled out the Drupal core part as an example (and I see G?bor is already filling out the d.o upgrade stuff -- awesome!) 2. I'm totally cool with putting this under the "Getting Involved" guide, and in fact think it could fill a nice niche there. Currently, Getting Involved gives you all of the higher level skills you need in order to be a proficient coder, translator, documentation contributor, etc. But what it lacks is a cohesive "Here's where you can jump in" list. IMO, Community Initiatives could be that list. I didn't re- parent the book because I am not sure where weight-wise it would make sense under Getting Involved, but am totally cool w/ it being put in there if people think that'd be good. 3. I actually vastly prefer a book-based solution over some sort of Views-powered solution because there would be absolutely no way to build a page like http://drupal.org/node/362152 with Views. You get finite control over the task list hierarchy, how much description you give to people, etc. Anyone can edit it. It's also easy to organize efforts into a hierarchical structure and get a "table of contents" of sorts as you click in. To me, book.module is an ideal solution for this and on Drupal.org, that means making it part of the handbook. -Angie From john at noceda.net Thu Jan 22 03:00:15 2009 From: john at noceda.net (John Noceda) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:00:15 +0100 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <86ca3ccb0901210838k2af3cc05y21c458ed5f0acc6f@mail.gmail.com> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> <38253303-08D1-4EB1-B53B-593EB2240658@gmail.com> <86ca3ccb0901210838k2af3cc05y21c458ed5f0acc6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005301c97c3d$8d71e230$a855a690$@net> Creating a top-level book does not mean that it has to become a handbook. So my suggestion is, even if we're utilizing the book content type, we do not call this a handbook and not list it on http://drupal.org/handbooks. We instead make a link on the "Contributor Links" block called "Community Initiatives" right after the "Advanced Search" and before the "Queue". Then it becomes a project management tool related to the issues queue and not related to documentation. The documentation blocks: "Quick Links" and "Handbook License" shouldn't be visible on this top-level book. We then announce the new functionality on the front page. The documentation admins/managers (or whatever name we decide on this on another on-going discussion) will then make it a task to explain the "Community Inititiative" feature in the "Getting Involved" handbook. IMHO, this put things in proper places. Listing it under the "Contributor Links" block makes it more visible to the correct target audience as well as it gives the impression of a better connection with the issues queue. My point is that it's a project management tool and not documentation. John -----Original Message----- From: documentation-bounces at drupal.org [mailto:documentation-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of G?bor Hojtsy Sent: 21. januar 2009 17:39 To: A list for documentation writers Subject: Re: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Addison Berry wrote: >> It almost sounds like this should be a view rather than just books >> hierarchy, since it could include time-frame-limited things, etc. >> Maybe it is a "dashboard" of embedded views of 2 or 3 different kinds >> things? It just seems like something requiring more relational >> connections rather than hierarchical burying. > > Yeah, I agree that figuring views into this would be nice and I still > think that we need to take a real look at an "ideal" long-term > solution. We also need to find a short-term solution that does *not* > involve views though. We do not have Views enabled on d.o and it will > not be until after the upgrade/redesign stuff, but Angie is in need of > some sort of overarching way to organize things *now* and this seemed > the handiest way to go. I did also raise the fact that we now have > tags and wouldn't using the taxo lists for tags be one way to go, but > Angie didn't like it because she wants to highlight only the > "important" stuff. We got to same / similar conclusions with the redesign / upgrade project planning. We can tag stuff, but in huge projects, such as these, we need a hierarchic, prioritized plan for what should happen. Therefore I've extended the drupal.org project filter, so if you use [#112233] (with the issue number), you'll get the status and the assigned user to the output already. From here, we can use this to build nested lists with annotations, images, etc for bigger project plans. This is all due to our project module lacking things like milestones, relative priority, project plans, etc, and they will not be implemented anytime soon (not that they should be). Flat views listing is not cutting it, since you cannot order stuff by relative priority (eg. an issue might be an important thing for implementing the map on the redesigned homepage, but the map on the redesigned homepage is not the highest priority overall). Tags don't provide a way for people to understand the process of implementing a big change in Drupal or on drupal.org, the order of them, cross-dependencies, etc. What we do because of the lack of higher project planning tools, milestones, etc. is a bit hackish, but looks like we prefer to use drupal.org then to use a third party, where these would be available, since here we can utilize our userbase, issue status data, etc, which we already have. G?bor -- Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ From drupal at rocktreesky.com Thu Jan 22 13:59:25 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:59:25 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New WP manual Message-ID: Not sure how many of you are familiar with the WordPress Codex, which is their online wiki-style documentation. Apparently Automattic is getting ready to write a more controlled "manual" which will be in XML and stored in SVN. Interesting in light of current discussions for us about the new help system in core and what to do about the Getting Started guide. For anyone interested, here is the link to their mailing list discussion about it. http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-docs/2009-January/001862.html - Addi From morbus at disobey.com Thu Jan 22 15:01:14 2009 From: morbus at disobey.com (Morbus Iff) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:01:14 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New WP manual In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49788A3A.7050800@disobey.com> > Not sure how many of you are familiar with the WordPress Codex, which > is their online wiki-style documentation. Apparently Automattic is > getting ready to write a more controlled "manual" which will be in XML > and stored in SVN. Interesting in light of current discussions for us > about the new help system in core and what to do about the Getting They don't get into more detail about which XML format they'd be using. If we did something similar, I'd only support Docbook and Docbook Lite, as there are plenty of existing converters for that (both to HTML, and to files suitable for printing; the entire Apache Cookbook from O'Reilly was written this way). -- Morbus Iff ( morbus is an authorizer reseller of fine maebari ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Enjoy: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.videounderbelly.com/ aim: akaMorbus / skype: morbusiff / icq: 2927491 / jabber.org: morbus From morbus at disobey.com Thu Jan 22 15:03:48 2009 From: morbus at disobey.com (Morbus Iff) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:03:48 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New WP manual In-Reply-To: <49788A3A.7050800@disobey.com> References: <49788A3A.7050800@disobey.com> Message-ID: <49788AD4.3060302@disobey.com> > They don't get into more detail about which XML format they'd be using. > If we did something similar, I'd only support Docbook and Docbook Lite, > as there are plenty of existing converters for that (both to HTML, and > to files suitable for printing; the entire Apache Cookbook from O'Reilly Actually, they seem to infer Docbook Lite, if you read more closely: "The handbook will be in XML form tied to Subversion (SVN)" "It will also include options for HTML and PDF versions" etc., which is all things you can already do with Docbook Lite. And: http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/doc/tools/readme-dblite.html -- Morbus Iff ( i still fail to see what this has to do with morocco ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Enjoy: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.videounderbelly.com/ aim: akaMorbus / skype: morbusiff / icq: 2927491 / jabber.org: morbus From sepeck at gmail.com Fri Jan 23 17:04:29 2009 From: sepeck at gmail.com (Steven Peck) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:04:29 -0800 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: <4977B0F3.1040108@logrus.com> References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> <507611440901211005w4f416d69k9ac2c7e5acf74f9f@mail.gmail.com> <4977B0F3.1040108@logrus.com> Message-ID: I included some of them because they convey a sense of whimsy which can be useful to turning an cliff into a step for people to get over. :) On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Lynette wrote: > That would certainly explain the packrat-ish state of some of the pages. ;) > > Or is it that we're just chock full of nuts? > > Addison Berry wrote: >> LOL, I totally vote for official "documentation squirrel" status. :-) >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >> >>> Documentation >>> Coordinator >>> Reviewer >>> Admin >>> Administrator >>> Editor >>> Editing Team >>> Overseer >>> Squirrel >>> Packmule >>> Robot >>> >>> I just wanted to see them all together. :) >>> >>> Documentation Admin or Documentation Administrator would convey the >>> role to me at least. >>> > > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > From gabor at hojtsy.hu Wed Jan 28 19:57:10 2009 From: gabor at hojtsy.hu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Hojtsy?=) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:57:10 +0100 Subject: [documentation] book anomalies in the Drupal 6 upgrade Message-ID: <86ca3ccb0901281157m19a77758geb02fcd3879c0ba5@mail.gmail.com> Dear doc team, Gerhard, Peter and Chx, We run into problems with the book upgrade on the Drupal.org Drupal 6 upgrade. There are these node ids, which have missing entries in the book table for some reason, so they will not end up as nodes in the book, and they will therefore break the chain of relationships (they are not a child of their parents, they don't have children pages). We run into serious upgrade problems with these nodes, and needed to apply the attached patch to work around and let the upgrade run. One option to fix this is to wait until the upgrade is done, and manually fix the placement of these nodes and their children (based on data from the current DB). The other option is to find out why there is no such data in the DB, while the current live site shows these nodes perfectly in the book hierarchy. The node ids are: 82661, 101736, 101735, 92375, 62470, 62462, 62462. They emit errors for all their children. I think it might be best to fix it in the DB before the upgrade :) G?bor From gabor at hojtsy.hu Wed Jan 28 20:00:20 2009 From: gabor at hojtsy.hu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Hojtsy?=) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:00:20 +0100 Subject: [documentation] book anomalies in the Drupal 6 upgrade In-Reply-To: <86ca3ccb0901281157m19a77758geb02fcd3879c0ba5@mail.gmail.com> References: <86ca3ccb0901281157m19a77758geb02fcd3879c0ba5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <86ca3ccb0901281200tdcd8e4el1ac3e3f03aa46fa6@mail.gmail.com> Ups, forgot the patch. G?bor On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:57 PM, G?bor Hojtsy wrote: > Dear doc team, Gerhard, Peter and Chx, > > We run into problems with the book upgrade on the Drupal.org Drupal 6 > upgrade. There are these node ids, which have missing entries in the > book table for some reason, so they will not end up as nodes in the > book, and they will therefore break the chain of relationships (they > are not a child of their parents, they don't have children pages). > > We run into serious upgrade problems with these nodes, and needed to > apply the attached patch to work around and let the upgrade run. One > option to fix this is to wait until the upgrade is done, and manually > fix the placement of these nodes and their children (based on data > from the current DB). The other option is to find out why there is no > such data in the DB, while the current live site shows these nodes > perfectly in the book hierarchy. > > The node ids are: 82661, 101736, 101735, 92375, 62470, 62462, 62462. > They emit errors for all their children. > > I think it might be best to fix it in the DB before the upgrade :) > > G?bor > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: book_anomaly_on_upgrade.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1045 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20090128/8546ad56/attachment.obj From gerhard at killesreiter.de Wed Jan 28 23:13:57 2009 From: gerhard at killesreiter.de (Gerhard Killesreiter) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:13:57 +0100 Subject: [documentation] book anomalies in the Drupal 6 upgrade In-Reply-To: <7F39A4FE-63BE-4908-AD32-82E643E3548F@rocktreesky.com> References: <86ca3ccb0901281157m19a77758geb02fcd3879c0ba5@mail.gmail.com> <7F39A4FE-63BE-4908-AD32-82E643E3548F@rocktreesky.com> Message-ID: <4980E6B5.4050004@killesreiter.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Addison Berry schrieb: > Eeek. That is bizarre. I agree that fixing them before the upgrade is > the better path to follow. I've no ideas on what is causing this though. No idea what causes this, but shouldn't we be able to just put the nodes at some place in the hierarchy and then see whether that helps? Cheers, Gerhard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmA5rUACgkQfg6TFvELooQr6gCfdV3dS3sHwp+heGUG/yrwtHv/ mucAnjFEm9ssk3DD3H7FWVT0A/OmSl8y =0BZj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gabor at hojtsy.hu Wed Jan 28 23:21:27 2009 From: gabor at hojtsy.hu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Hojtsy?=) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:21:27 +0100 Subject: [documentation] book anomalies in the Drupal 6 upgrade In-Reply-To: <4980E6B5.4050004@killesreiter.de> References: <86ca3ccb0901281157m19a77758geb02fcd3879c0ba5@mail.gmail.com> <7F39A4FE-63BE-4908-AD32-82E643E3548F@rocktreesky.com> <4980E6B5.4050004@killesreiter.de> Message-ID: <86ca3ccb0901281521v6b7188bcg16268a14768b7c2e@mail.gmail.com> Well, if we can do queries on these on the book table (see my patch on what query fails, because it does not find rows). Let's see whether that is a problem on the live DB, and if so, how can we add the missing data. G?bor On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Addison Berry schrieb: >> Eeek. That is bizarre. I agree that fixing them before the upgrade is >> the better path to follow. I've no ideas on what is causing this though. > > > No idea what causes this, but shouldn't we be able to just put the > nodes at some place in the hierarchy and then see whether that helps? > > Cheers, > Gerhard > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkmA5rUACgkQfg6TFvELooQr6gCfdV3dS3sHwp+heGUG/yrwtHv/ > mucAnjFEm9ssk3DD3H7FWVT0A/OmSl8y > =0BZj > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/ > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/ > From drupal at rocktreesky.com Thu Jan 29 23:49:04 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:49:04 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Drupal on the web In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <633B4AFA-309F-47BB-8C1C-DA3068BCDED9@rocktreesky.com> Hey all, this was a thought from Tim and I wanted to have the team have a think on it. If we do add a list like this, we'd probably need to lock it down and have guidelines for what could/should be included. I'm also not sure of the best place to actually put this. I'd be -1 to adding company accounts, I'd prefer to keep it "official" stuff only. - Addi On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Tim Millwood wrote: > I was thinking about putting a list of Drupal twitter accounts > together. > > http://twitter.com/drupal_security > http://twitter.com/drupal_modules > http://twitter.com/Druplicon > http://twitter.com/drupalredesign > http://twitter.com/drupalcon > > There are also all the Acquia and Lullabot teams, but maybe these do > not have a place on Drupal.org? > > I think the Drupal related Flickr photos are already on Drupal Talk. > > Tim From drupal at rocktreesky.com Fri Jan 30 23:38:01 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:38:01 -0500 Subject: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community Initiatives" In-Reply-To: <005301c97c3d$8d71e230$a855a690$@net> References: <449DEE9B-83E7-4AFD-AACD-49C68D22EA5E@webchick.net> <0254E61D-BFF6-458B-A515-DD624804D479@rocktreesky.com> <38253303-08D1-4EB1-B53B-593EB2240658@gmail.com> <86ca3ccb0901210838k2af3cc05y21c458ed5f0acc6f@mail.gmail.com> <005301c97c3d$8d71e230$a855a690$@net> Message-ID: <20C9071B-F821-4635-917F-1A963923E35C@rocktreesky.com> Sorry for the delay. Had one more quick chat with Angie and I agree with John, that this isn't really "documentation." So, we'll leave Community Initiatives as a top-level book and link to it where appropriate. It is already has an alias (http://drupal.org/community-initiatives ) and is linked from Getting Involved landing page. I have reopened an issue and attached a new patch to remove the patch spotlight and add the CI link to the block (http://drupal.org/node/ 341070#comment-1230034). Feel free to sprinkle liberally where it makes sense. I'll start setting up the Documentation projects section this weekend and we can remove the tabs from the OG (which no one ever sees or uses anyway). Thanks to all the ideas and discussion. - Addi On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:00 PM, John Noceda wrote: > Creating a top-level book does not mean that it has to become a > handbook. So > my suggestion is, even if we're utilizing the book content type, we > do not > call this a handbook and not list it on http://drupal.org/handbooks. > We > instead make a link on the "Contributor Links" block called "Community > Initiatives" right after the "Advanced Search" and before the > "Queue". Then > it becomes a project management tool related to the issues queue and > not > related to documentation. The documentation blocks: "Quick Links" and > "Handbook License" shouldn't be visible on this top-level book. We > then > announce the new functionality on the front page. The documentation > admins/managers (or whatever name we decide on this on another on- > going > discussion) will then make it a task to explain the "Community > Inititiative" > feature in the "Getting Involved" handbook. > > IMHO, this put things in proper places. Listing it under the > "Contributor > Links" block makes it more visible to the correct target audience as > well as > it gives the impression of a better connection with the issues > queue. My > point is that it's a project management tool and not documentation. > > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > From: documentation-bounces at drupal.org > [mailto:documentation-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of G?bor Hojtsy > Sent: 21. januar 2009 17:39 > To: A list for documentation writers > Subject: Re: [documentation] New handbook section proposal: "Community > Initiatives" > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Addison Berry > > wrote: >>> It almost sounds like this should be a view rather than just books >>> hierarchy, since it could include time-frame-limited things, etc. >>> Maybe it is a "dashboard" of embedded views of 2 or 3 different >>> kinds >>> things? It just seems like something requiring more relational >>> connections rather than hierarchical burying. >> >> Yeah, I agree that figuring views into this would be nice and I still >> think that we need to take a real look at an "ideal" long-term >> solution. We also need to find a short-term solution that does *not* >> involve views though. We do not have Views enabled on d.o and it will >> not be until after the upgrade/redesign stuff, but Angie is in need >> of >> some sort of overarching way to organize things *now* and this seemed >> the handiest way to go. I did also raise the fact that we now have >> tags and wouldn't using the taxo lists for tags be one way to go, but >> Angie didn't like it because she wants to highlight only the >> "important" stuff. > > We got to same / similar conclusions with the redesign / upgrade > project > planning. We can tag stuff, but in huge projects, such as these, we > need a > hierarchic, prioritized plan for what should happen. > Therefore I've extended the drupal.org project filter, so if you use > [#112233] (with the issue number), you'll get the status and the > assigned > user to the output already. From here, we can use this to build > nested lists > with annotations, images, etc for bigger project plans. This is all > due to > our project module lacking things like milestones, relative priority, > project plans, etc, and they will not be implemented anytime soon > (not that > they should be). Flat views listing is not cutting it, since you > cannot > order stuff by relative priority (eg. an issue might be an important > thing > for implementing the map on the redesigned homepage, but the map on > the > redesigned homepage is not the highest priority overall). Tags don't > provide > a way for people to understand the process of implementing a big > change in > Drupal or on drupal.org, the order of them, cross-dependencies, etc. > > What we do because of the lack of higher project planning tools, > milestones, > etc. is a bit hackish, but looks like we prefer to use drupal.org > then to > use a third party, where these would be available, since here we can > utilize > our userbase, issue status data, etc, which we already have. > > G?bor > -- > 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/20090130/09e893d1/attachment.htm From drupal at rocktreesky.com Fri Jan 30 23:43:00 2009 From: drupal at rocktreesky.com (Addison Berry) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:43:00 -0500 Subject: [documentation] Change the "Join Documentation Team" component In-Reply-To: References: <008201c97b7d$a81bc350$f85349f0$@net> <73A97222-171E-40DB-A67B-A48B7BAE63A2@rocktreesky.com> <562A3F3D-4EAB-4FFC-A21D-584825372B6E@rocktreesky.com> <962C3F51-9C7E-4D05-8342-FC70CA9D3A2E@gmail.com> <507611440901211005w4f416d69k9ac2c7e5acf74f9f@mail.gmail.com> <4977B0F3.1040108@logrus.com> Message-ID: Alright, so how about "Apply for documentation admin"? Any way we slice it, it'll be a bit long. - Addi On Jan 23, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Steven Peck wrote: > I included some of them because they convey a sense of whimsy which > can be useful to turning an cliff into a step for people to get over. > :) > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Lynette wrote: >> That would certainly explain the packrat-ish state of some of the >> pages. ;) >> >> Or is it that we're just chock full of nuts? >> >> Addison Berry wrote: >>> LOL, I totally vote for official "documentation squirrel" >>> status. :-) >>> >>> >>> On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Steven Peck wrote: >>> >>>> Documentation >>>> Coordinator >>>> Reviewer >>>> Admin >>>> Administrator >>>> Editor >>>> Editing Team >>>> Overseer >>>> Squirrel >>>> Packmule >>>> Robot >>>> >>>> I just wanted to see them all together. :) >>>> >>>> Documentation Admin or Documentation Administrator would convey the >>>> role to me at least. >>>> >> >> -- >> 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/