[documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition

[Shai Gluskin]

Fernando and all,

@Fernando: "our goal could be to achieve clear solutions for getting more
contributors."

I agree. I think this thread has run its course. See the links below.

@Fernando: "the spirit of OpenSource is democracy, there is not OpenSource
without democracy."

What I meant in that context was: "We don't take formal votes to make
decisions." Also in that context, where I was challenging Steve P., the head
of Drupal's Documentation team, I wanted to make sure he knew I wasn't
challenging his authority. But yes, I agree with everything you said.

Here are two action follow-ups that emerged from this conversation that are
now on the issue queue:
Proposal to give anonymous users access to revisions tab on doc
pages<http://drupal.org/node/263490>
.
Proposal to add a block to thank current contributors and recruit new
ones<http://drupal.org/node/263767>
.

Shai

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Fernando P. García <fernando at develcuy.com>
wrote:

> Shai, let me say with respect and good feeling: the spirit of OpenSource is
> democracy, there is not OpenSource without democracy. We are not equals but
> we all use the same: Drupal, and we all part of the same community: Drupal.
> Nobody used a gun for moving us to collaborate. And from my personal point
> of view: Nothing more near to the truth may become successful, because
> Democracy is a divine principle.
>
> So, please notice this particular topic is near to 100 replies:
> http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/2008-May/date.html, and
> our goal could be to achieve clear solutions for getting more contributors.
>
> Blessings!
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Shai Gluskin <shai at content2zero.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Steve P. wrote:
>>
>>> This is not a performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a
>>> benefit of
>>> joining the community.
>>
>>
>> @steve-p I disagree with this assertion. It suggests that one of the goals
>> of Drupal.org is to try to get people to join the community via registering
>> at the site. It suggests that drupal.org withholds goodies in order to
>> get them to register.
>>
>> There are many legitimate reasons to hold back various functionalities
>> from anonymous users (e.g. security, system resources etc.), but I don't
>> believe that restricting project transparency for the sake of increasing the
>> number of registered users at Drupal.org is a valid reason.
>>
>> I have been really impressed with transparency in the Drupal project. The
>> proceedings of the project are available for public review. I find that
>> inspiring. That kind of transparency is rare in the worlds of government,
>> business, and sadly, non-profits as well. Leaders are typically concerned
>> with message, spin, and control. I haven't seen much of that in Drupal. (I'm
>> user/50259, joined in 2/06 and have gotten steadily more involved over
>> time.)
>>
>> I often need to explain to people that open-source does not mean
>> "egalitarian" -- we are not all equal in the project. And Dries as project
>> leader has the final say on many things, especially as regards to core. It
>> isn't a democracy. But the success of the project does rely on highly
>> motivated people becoming involved. I believe that the significant
>> transparency of this project is one of the motivating factors for people to
>> become involved.
>>
>> The Revisions Tab is a small part of Drupal's transparency profile. But it
>> worries me, even in this little arena, to think of access to certain
>> information being used as a reward for registration. That feels controlling
>> to me. It feels counter to Drupal's open approach.
>>
>> Shai
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Steven Peck <sepeck at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We are not enabling revisions for anonymous users.  This is not a
>>> performance question as far as I am concerned, this is a benefit of
>>> joining the community.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, catch <catch56 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Peter Wolanin
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Regarding making revisions available to anonymous users - you'd better
>>> >> talk to Gerhard and Narayan (and other infra people).  The scalability
>>> >> problem might be that you've essentially doubled the number of
>>> >> handbook pages that will be spidered.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > If we excluded *revisions* in robots.txt we could probably avoid the
>>> > spidering. That's probably one post subdomain-split anyway.
>>> >
>>> > http://drupal.org/handbook/updates was exactly the page I meant,
>>> couldn't
>>> > place it when I typed the e-mail. Ta!
>>> >
>>> > Nat
>>> > --
>>> > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>> >
>>> --
>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Fernando P. García, http://www.develcuy.com
> Developer - Analista de Sistemas
> +51 1 9 8991 7871, Mz. P Lt. 30 1et Urb. Pachacamac - VES, Lima - Perú
>
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080528/12bd5433/attachment.htm