* Brendan Gregg <brendan.gregg at tpg.com.au> [2006-01-14 08:20]: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Michelle Olson wrote: > I see two main types of documentation contribution, > > 1. If an OpenSolaris contributer wants to write OFFICIAL documentation > that ends up on docs.sun.com (especially for a topic Sun would not > normally find the time for, eg "writing an FMA messaging agent"), then > reading a 278 page style guide should be the least of their problems. > Representing Sun in such a formal capacity can't be taken lightly, and > writing such authorative documentation is hard work. If the contributer > accepts that, and Sun accepts their work, then great. > > 2. If an OpenSolaris contributer wants to throw together some informal > documentation for opensolaris.org (so long as it's accurate > documentation), a summarised version or a checklist style guide would be > much better. It may not look like official Sun documentation - but > perhaps this is desirable. If some OpenSolaris documentation looks like > Sun wrote it, customers will believe Sun wrote it and may take it TOO > seriously. > > Most of the documentation I would want to write would be the second type. > I'm not sure what others had in mind - if we were to do more of the first > or second type?
Actually, I've been talking with Jim about a third type: where the the contributor is writing content for a third publisher--neither formal documentation nor informal HOWTO-like documentation. In this case, we probably want a simple and very short "consistent use" guide, so that the standard uses of the "OpenSolaris project" and related trademarks are explained, etc. I suspect we'd very much like to assist writing (and other forms of content generation) for a variety of outlets. - Stephen
