----- Original Message -----
From: "Carsten Ziegeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: Document Gestation Process?
> 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.
Definately +1.
Diane, remember that we are a bit baised versus the status quo.
You are more in synch with the users; if it were the other way round we
wouldn't need your help! :-)
Go ahead, I'll follow you.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
