Michael wrote:

> The result, much more often than not in my experience, is a document
> that nobody takes responsibility for, that has very weak overall
> structure, and random level of detail over various parts. No guarantee
> that important information is represented appropriately at all.
>
> I'd like to know who to kick if the document sucks.

for what Boris replied:

> You are welcome to visit www.wikipedia.org and convince yourself that is far
> away from being myth.

Sorry to say, Boris, but your example is mistaken. Wikipedia has
millions of editors, and they do it for fun. A normal developer, i.e.
who is not forced to write documentation, rarely writes it for fun.
She writes code instead. And a software project rarely excess the
hundreds in person, so there is no critical mass for the documentation
process to be self-sustaining.

Should there be a responsible project manager, she puts resources for
writing the documentation. If this is the case, it can be wiki, which
does have advantages over word documents.

- Gergely
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PPIG Discuss List (discuss@ppig.org)
Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/

Reply via email to