[documentation] New Handbook Page for Review... And a More General Question

Tue Feb 2 02:52:20 UTC 2010

FWIW I just finished a HUGE tidy of the D7 install guide last night (except
for the multisite section) that I'd been working on for about a month. It is
in infinitely better shape now but definitely needs a little more work and
then some more reviewing. (All my notes are on the issue
http://drupal.org/node/538054.)

The critical D7 to-do list jennifer and I have been keeping up to date is
here: http://drupal.org/node/515870.

The highest priority task is updating and writing the missing API docs. Next
is all the D7 handbook work (install and upgrade guides, and docs for the
new modules).

A side not, I got "permission" as such from Earl (merlinofchaos) to tidy and
update the views section of the handbook (most of their real docs are in
advanced help, but the handbook section has become a dog's breakfast and
needs work). So that's marginally on my radar of medium priority.

Most module maintainers are thrilled to have even semi-complete docs dropped
in their laps for a review. If uncertain, ping them on IRC or by email and
collaborate.

I know maybe recognition is a big motivator for some, but I think we have to
somewhat focus on why we're really doing this - because we want to help
people use and create Drupal. And the way we do that is just to take
initiative and GSD (pardon my language, Get Shit Done).

Once we've got the critical D7 stuff off our plates, we can refocus on
docs.drupal.org and other improvements such as how to give credit.

A.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:12 PM, beckysue sh <bekasu at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm taking a walk on the wild side.
>
> I owe clean up on d7 installation directions.
> I owe clean up on d7 upgrade directions.
> I owe jhodgdon two patches on drupal core now that I am less ignorant
> of how to run eclipse.
>
> I took a side jaunt over into the biblio module to write up
> documentation for advanced help and integrate it into their  6x2dev
> version.
> I'm currently developing a biblio companion module (biblio
> collections) based on cloned code from another module.
>
> I agree completely that it takes different personality types.
> Offering to provide advanced help integration into a module was very,
> very well received.   While I'm not sure we can convince a
> 'programmer' to write documentation, this particular one (rjerome) was
> very willing to critique things once the docs were provided.  He also
> asked questions about biblio docs on d.o., organization of same,
> enhancements to it, etc.  He also pointed out he didn't have edit
> access to the biblio documentation pages on d.o. since things have
> begun moving around.
>
> Perhaps we could consider mini-sprints for incorporating advanced help
> into contributed modules as a segway into engaging the contributor
> module owner into helping with docs.
>
> We also did a survey last year (2009) regarding how to say thank-you
> on drupal.  I analyzed the info and sent it to add1sun just before she
> needed a break to handle personal stuff.  Perhaps we should revisit
> that as well.
>
> bekasu
>
> On 2/1/10, Ariane Khachatourians <arianekhachatourians at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As much as I really do agree that it would be great to have some more
> formal
> > acknowledgment, and that it should certainly be a consideration as maybe
> > another phase of the redesign and development of docs.drupal.org, in the
> > meantime, I think it's a bit of a matter of self promoting.
> >
> > - List your contributions on your d.o profile
> > - Blog about your achievements
> > - Add it to your bio on your company's website
> >
> > And never negate the worth of Drupal karma - I have seen my perceived
> worth
> > and the amount of respect I get in the community grow significantly
> through
> > working on docs.
> >
> > But yes, let's put that on the agenda of things to work out - why not
> file
> > an issue?
> > A.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Shai Gluskin <shai at content2zero.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Re: Josh, given that at your first glance you thought there was a
> security
> >> problem... even though it was from not reading thoroughly, I'm concerned
> >> othes will read similarly. So I changed some the intro to the following:
> >>
> >> An alternative, detailed here, is for the *site developer* to place PHP
> >> code into the "PHP Code" fieldset below the allowed values box on the
> >> textfield set-up page in order to populate the list by parsing the text
> >> stored in a node.
> >>
> >>
> >> I've removed the credit at the bottom.
> >>
> >> But it raises a larger issue... which is how to promote more
> documentation
> >> writing within Drupal.
> >>
> >> By comparison... let's look at developers in the Drupal ecosystem... For
> >> those who want to get at the heart of the beast, who have LOTS of
> patience
> >> and not much interest in getting credit, there is Drupal core. For those
> >> who
> >> want to be in charge, have less patience and want to be king of
> >> something...
> >> they can be involved in module development. Some folks do both, but it
> >> seems
> >> like there is a personality difference in the two types of people. So
> the
> >> question is, "How can we make writing documentation more motivating form
> >> more people to want to participate?"
> >>
> >> Shai
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Ariane Khachatourians <
> >> arianekhachatourians at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just had a skim.
> >>>
> >>> I would agree and say it's pretty well a policy not to credit yourself
> on
> >>> the pages (though I would keep the links to the other two pages if they
> >>> are
> >>> useful as references). It does indeed discourage others from updating
> the
> >>> pages, and sort of clutters up the pages if a lot of people have worked
> >>> on
> >>> them.
> >>>
> >>> If people want to know who's worked on pages, all they need to is look
> at
> >>> the revisions tab.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, formatting and such looks pretty good.
> >>> A.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Joshua Brauer
> >>> <joshua at brauerranch.com>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Um... OK so I didn't read this correctly... The PHP issue isn't what
> it
> >>>> looked like at first glance....
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  Thanks,
> >>>> Josh
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jbrauer
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Joshua Brauer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Any user with the permissions to post PHP code to your site has
> >>>> permissions much greater than 'administer content types'. In fact they
> >>>> can
> >>>> give themselves 'administer content types' permissions should they
> >>>> choose
> >>>> to.
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought we had a policy against the credit links but maybe it's just
> >>>> been a discussion. In short, in my opinion, the credit links
> discourage
> >>>> others from editing pages as appropriate, clutter the page, and become
> a
> >>>> problem as to "at what point when I've edited the page should I remove
> >>>> those
> >>>> credit links from two years ago".
> >>>>
> >>>>  Thanks,
> >>>> Josh
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jbrauer
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Shai Gluskin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> A friend of mine (he's newish to Drupal, this is his first handbook
> >>>> page... go Laurance Rosenzweig @rosetwig) and I wrote a new handbook
> >>>> page
> >>>> for the Reference: snippets section called, "Managing a CCK allowed
> >>>> values list without granting 'administer content types' access."
> >>>>
> >>>> It's at: http://drupal.org/node/701774
> >>>>
> >>>> Three kinds of feedback would be appreciated:
> >>>>
> >>>>    1. Tell me there is a much easier way (I'm dreading this one...
> hope
> >>>>    that is NULL)
> >>>>    2. Review the handbook page and make improvements (it's directly
> >>>>    editable by all d.o. users as are other handbook pages).
> >>>>    3. Give feedback on the "credits" at the end. Laurance in writing
> it
> >>>>    up listed our names as creators of the tutorial. That's pretty rare
> >>>> on
> >>>>    handbook pages, isn't it? I'm wondering if that is a part of d.o.
> >>>> culture
> >>>>    that might be worth changing. I understand that handbook pages
> evolve
> >>>> with
> >>>>    their wiki style. But the revisions list preserves that. And module
> >>>> pages
> >>>>    often have "originally written by" lines in them even as the new
> >>>> maintainer
> >>>>    identifies him/herself. What do you think.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Shai
> >>>>  --
> >>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> >>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> >>>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> >>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >>
> >
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20100201/6bae85ad/attachment-0001.html 