[documentation] commentary

[Steven Peck]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:53 PM, christopher calicott <purrin at binary.net> wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Steven Peck wrote:
>> So, often there is an idea.  I don't see they benefit in the provided
>> explanation and say so, clearly and generally ask a follow up on how
>> an issue I see would be addressed.  All to often it ends in silence so
>> I assume that the original requester could not answer my concerns so I
>> move on.
>
>
> I think this is exactly what needs improvement, since you've mentioned
> it.  I saw multiple people in that session being met with that sort of
> reply, and while I'm sure the intention to clarify their ideas and
> distill the idea/suggestion into writing down is there, it "reads" to
> people like this:  "I guess maybe they don't think it's a good idea,
> basically.."   Or "I guess I'm going to have to justify my idea to
> this guy before it can proceed..   oh well, I guess."

This is a large project.  If you are doing a few pages, then do a few
pages.  People do that all the time with little or no input.  If you
wish to engage in larger structural changes, then propose a change,
garner feedback and refine until agreement.  I am unsure how else you
would proceed.

> People don't know always know what you're getting at, Steven, to be
> frank.   I'm still not 100% clear of what it is that you, personally,
> would like for people to produce to satisfy your goals for Drupal
> documentation, but I think we need to foster a spirit of "hey the more
> great ideas the better" and help these new people find the right path
> to include that information in the docs.   I just really hate to see
> people's spirit quashed right off the bat, and the reality is, I saw it.

Then ask.  What goals?  Get more, get better, be accessible.  I do not
have a mission or agenda.  I have a few things I like/want in soem
areas, but beyond that I am not that complicated.  When in doubt ask
do not assume.

> Drupal is at a huge point of increasing momentum.  More and more world
> class designers are taking an interest in the platform - more people
> that have worked on very, very large, high profile projects with other
> cms's as well - people that like to get right down to work.   The
> community can only benefit by the influx of new people and the way
> that they can most directly add to the community in the shortest
> amount of time is through the documentation team.

Drupal has always been at the point of gaining momentum.  This is not
a new thing, this is not a new experience.  People can get down to
work, but one does not jump in without communications.  If you have a
plan, propose it, seek input, refine, seek consensues and agreement.
I would hope these basics are shared across many open source projects,
they have certainly been so on the ones I have participated in.

We have a history of this type of work as well.

> All I am advocating is that we try to put a little better face on the
> way people interface most immediately with the Drupal community - that
> falls to us.

ok.

>>
>> Then later, I see people complaining about 'they were shut down' so
>> it's all my fault they don't contribute.  This is more then slightly
>> irritating.
>>
>> I am also DEEPLY offended that people would accuse me of being the
>> type of person to engage in reprisals.  Offended.  I have NEVER done
>> so or acted in such a manner in my entire time in this community.
>> Everything I have done, has been open discussion in the forums or in a
>> mailing list.  I have NEVER 'retaliated' against anyone on drupal.org
>> despite some direct attacks on me personally.
>>
>> Steven Peck
>> Current Documentation Lead.
>
>
> Uhm, I had no intentions of causing a reaction like this.  I hope my
> points can at least be heard in the spirit that they were intended,
> which was meant to be a helpful, well-intentioned one.    We don't
> need to build walls for people to climb when they have a
> suggestion...  An extended helpful hand would go so very, very far.
> I guess this reaction kind of illustrates my point, though.   It feels
> very awkward when you are relatively new and you see an area you truly
> needs to be addressed and you totally inadvertently rub people wrong
> because you're trying to improve "their thing."   That, honestly, can
> inhibit more fresh ideas from flowing into the community, and I am -
> along with so many other people around the world - financially
> invested in Drupal being the biggest, long-term success that it can
> be.   My business depends on that, as does most people's, I'm
> assuming...
>
> -=- christopher

Wait?  I can be accused of being the type of person that would engage
in reprisals and it's still my fault for being upset that someone
would accuse my of such reprehensible behavior?  I wasn't
inadvertently rubbed the wrong way, I was accused of being a malicious
person and frankly I am still upset at that and owed a public apology.
  Dozens of people have made changes in the handbook, some I did not
agree with, most are still there today.   Why?  Because they thought
it would help and I thought it would not do any harm to see if it did
and if someone would learn something by doing it.

If you thing you you can improve something, then you must engage
people to 'sell' your idea.  If you are unknown, then you must build
credibility and trust.  The only way is to participate and
communicate.  If you want to change something, then propose, garner
feedback, refine, carry though.  I am unclear how this is different
then it was last year or the year before or any other collaborative
effort, closed or open source.

Not agreeing with someone is not 'shutting them down', it is not
agreeing with them.  If you still think you have a better mouse trap,
then you have to carry through on why it is a better mouse trap.  If
the response is "we've done that before", then you must address what
didn't work 'before' and why it will work now.

Your points can be heard in the spirit they were offered.  The public
accusation against my character is yet to be addressed.

Steven