To make it concrete and not just critique, I put together https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6912 for consideration.
Kenn On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:48 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > I can accept (but never love) a sidebar that isn't a site map. Personally, > I find them disorienting and they lower my confidence in the quality and > authoritativeness of the content. But I understand I am just one person, > composed of idiosyncracies. > > I actually think that the contents of Community > Contact Us are not > contextualized for an incoming contributor. How about "Contribute > Get > Help": a page more focused on contributors, clarifying the role of > different communication channels and the PMC/Committers roster for getting > a change build and incorporated. It could also subsume the off-site FAQ > link. > > Kenn > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:16 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In the case of "Contact Us", the redundancy is deliberate-- we received >> feedback on the Contribution Guide that the content is heavy and it wasn't >> obvious how to find help. We wanted the "Contact Us" link as visible as >> possible, so the proposed solution was to have it in both sidebars. >> >> In my opinion I don't think a strict content hierarchy is necessary in >> the sidebar, and we should instead focus on providing the right context. >> We'll hit additional cases like this as more content moves out to the wiki. >> >> Some additional details on the original feedback is in JIRA: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5735 >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:02 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> And the site map structure actually has a couple more issues: >>> >>> - Contribute > Roadmap is the same as top-level Roadmap >>> - Contribute > Contact Us is the same as Community > Contact Us. >>> - Contribute > PMC and Committers is the same as Community > Team >>> - Contribute > Policies > * is separate from Community > Policies, for >>> good reasons but it looks weird >>> >>> I don't mean this only as a critique of the change, but also of the >>> prior structure, which seemingly didn't work well. >>> >>> Sam/Thomas/Scott also - was it the case that while working through >>> contributing it was unclear where these resources could be found? Is there >>> a better division here? I think previously the Contribute and Community >>> sections were one and the same, but we split them to put more heavyweight >>> stuff under Contribute. >>> >>> Kenn >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >> >
