Steven Noels wrote: > David Crossley wrote: <snip/> > > > > I think that the murkiness is a result of not having > > a proposal and subsequent discussion before calling > > a vote. > > Hm. Could be, although this particular subject has been discussed, > semi-proposed and whatnot already at some serious length in the > past, the usual circular discussion following suit hereafter.
I only ever saw haphazard discussion, never a clear proposal, and then suddenly a vote. The discussion then had to happen mixed up with the vote. This approach does not seem to work. > IMHO, only you and Diana are feeling confident with the current > documentation 'system' (please consider this to be a sincere > compliment). Of course, this situation is wrong. Actually, i do not feel at all confident (thanks for the compliment). I have been keen to have an improved system for a long time. > Therefore, I'm on a quest for a clean-sheet approach. I see two (!) main > areas: > > - the website, with some general purpose info, and Cocoon primers > - Cocoon documentation, which is a mix of serious hand-written > reference material, and some generated stuff, which is properly > versioned and closely attached to a certain release version - no more > CVS syncing anymore. I see that second item as still being published on the website. > Sigh. I assume this is some pattern in (community?) development: "at a > certain point in time, people will want to start from scratch in order > to proceed, and the historical past is only a burden then". Or is it > just my own laziness when it comes to proper refactoring? Well i think that refactoring should "build upon" previous work rather than "destroy and re-build". Starting from scratch would be okay, as long as any old work that was still relevant was built back in again. Often valuable work gets hidden in the CVS Attic, perhaps with good intentions to bring it back during second stage of refactoring. When it gets forgotten, then that is a community killer. --David
