Diana Shannon wrote: > > On April 29, 2002, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > I can only speak for myself, but this process seems a little bit > > over complicated as it involves many stages. We don't want to print > > a book, we only want good documentation. > > What is the difference? Why are Cocoon developers working so hard and so > brilliantly to implement "best practices" in Cocoon software and yet > seemingly willing to ignore "best practices" in producing "good" > documentation? Just because the cvs model of peer review works well for > open source does not necessarily mean it's the optimal approach for > producing quality documentation. Just because this is an open source > documentation project doesn't mean it can't have, at least as a goal, > first-rate documentation. > > I want to make it very clear: this effort does NOT seek to diminish the > success of anyone's outside effort to write books about Cocoon. It > simply wants to use tap into existing community resources -- not > developers -- in order to add additional "concerns" to the document > development process at crucial and helpful points. This includes > authors, editors, and QA testers who will add valuable input to content > and structure at critical development points. > My answer has absolutely nothing to do with books about Cocoon - it has to do with a working model for a fast moving open source project like Cocoon is. (The five persons writing books about Cocoon have contributed a lot to the Cocoon documentation, so this not a contradiction.)
But anyway, this is open source and I think it was Paul or Giacomo who said to me in my first days of Cocoon: "It's open source - and the great thing about open source is that you can do whatever you want :)". So, I suggest, instead of theoretical arguing, just let's try your approach. If it works, great, you proved me wrong, and I can learn from that! - If not, well we can adopt your approach here and there until it works. And please, I don't say that there is no way that your approach works - I only doubt it. Cheers Carsten > > And I fear if we set up > > such strict rules, well, we don't get any docs anymore :) > > IMHO, your limited number of steps don't really change the status quo. I > think it's "wishful thinking" to assume that document coordinator can > simply go into the cvs and magically produce quality docs. Quality > occurs as a result of a process, and I'm trying to introduce more > "concerns" and more ownership into that process. What I feel most limits > contributions is the cvs-oriented patch approach that we have now. I > think we have fundamental problems with how content and structure are > developed, not merely coordination of effort. > > Remember I'm talking about structures for users -- not developers -- who > volunteer to write docs. I'm trying to create mechanisms that help them > by making their work more focused. I'm not trying to limit anyone. > > Diana > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
