Hi - I would like to throw out a suggestion. I think that the documentation on the site is already becoming scattered in a way that is going to make it less user friendly for people to find what they are looking for. I did a page-by-page look for all documentation on the OpenSolaris site, and I found documentation on about 4 different pages. Although that doesn't seem like much, if someone is looking for something and can't remember where they saw it, it will be frustrating. If this is perpetuated, it's going to be even more difficult to consoldate down the road.
I think it is worth considering consolidating the documentation onto the community documentation site and providing pointers to them from the places where they are now located. Additionally, move the articles on the articles web page to the community documentation site instead of having a separate web page for it. I think if we create a centralized archive from the start, it will keep the documentation well-organized and easy to find and use. I'm happy to help work on this if it sounds like a good idea to others. Ginnie Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> >>> Ben Rockwood wrote: >>> >>>> Jim Grisanzio wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did a little blog pointing to the articles on opensolaris.org: >>>>> >>>>> http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris?entry=some_articles_on_opensolaris >>>>> >>>>> We'll eventually have to link to these from the front page. There >>>>> are few more articles written and in review (Solaris on laptops, a >>>>> 3rd driver article, a kernel comparison, and a piece on >>>>> portability. We'll release those as soon as they are done. >>>>> >>>>> For those of you who are new to the community: we had some articles >>>>> written (some light technical, some community profiles, etc) during >>>>> the pilot program, and we'd like to continue that function if you >>>>> are interested. Are you? If so, what publishing model is best for >>>>> this community? Who are the writers out there? When I say that I >>>>> mean are you interested in contributing articles, and how would you >>>>> like to be recognized for that contribution? And if so, would you >>>>> like to help work on an editorial plan to get us going past what we >>>>> already have? I think we need to figure out a way to incent people >>>>> to contribute (to write/edit/review) things like how-tos, profiles, >>>>> case studies, opinion pieces, feature articles, news, etc. In terms >>>>> of style, I'm thinking that the more magazine-like the better to >>>>> distinguish this editorial from documentation. >>>>> >>>>> We are working on a website editorial policy to sort of outline who >>>>> does what and where on the site generally. This "articles" section >>>>> I'm talking about is just one part of that, but we really began it >>>>> back in the pilot program. It'll all come together over time. >>>>> >>>>> Opinions? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Question... did Sun pay for those profiles? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> >>>> If so, why? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We contracted with O'Reilly (two editors, in fact) during the pilot >>> program for the articles based on their work with other Sun open >>> source projects, most notably java.net. That contract has come to >>> fruition, so I'm looking for a new way to generate some content. >>> "Why" specifically is more difficult. The thinking back last year was >>> to make the site more of a magazine-style feel based on java.net but >>> customized for Solaris and the OpenSolaris community. Offering that >>> is one of Oreilly's services. The original vision never really >>> materialized, so what we have is a series of articles to build from. >> >> >> >> This is just the opinion of one, and take it with as much salt as you >> like, but... I strongly feel opposed to OpenSolaris having ties like >> this. > > > I think we'll have to develop many ties to various communities for the > purposes of collaboration. Including O'Reilly. Love 'em or hate 'em they > are part of the open source community, just as are we. Their style may > not be right for OpenSolaris at this early time, but that's ok. Perhaps > we'll meet up in the future. No big deal. They have helped us a great > deal in some areas, especially early on by providing access to key open > source people for the purposes of feedback sessions (way before the > pilot began). They also helped provide speakers for Sun's Open Source > Conference in Santa Clara last summer. They've helped out in other ways, > too. They article thing wasn't as successful, but it doesn't mean we can > try again with a new model ourselves or even re-engage O'Reilly in the > future. > > > Its obvious from the profiles that the authors researched the > >> persons they profiles instead of knowing them. They read very >> professionally, sure, but flat and contribed. > > > An editorial relationship takes time. Editors need time to build a > writer base and get to know sources, etc. That never really happened > here, but it could happen and should happen and it's what I had hoped > would happen. > > OpenSolaris isn't a > >> product to be marketed the same as Java with sponsoring ties, farm >> outs, etc, but something entirely diffrent that must be maintained as >> pure. Cutting a deal with O'Reilly or any other company for that >> matter just seems to cheapen the whole project. It seems shallow, >> like we have to buy friends or something. > > > I don't think we were buying friends as much as we were simply looking > to engage with a friend and try something to help the project. Sun has > extensive business and developer relationships with O'Reilly, and so it > made sense to engage -- albeit at a very, very low level. Why wouldn't > we want to talk to O'Reilly's network of developers? It's pretty > substantial. Hey, I tried. Take it as that. Nothing more. I argued early > on this project that the entire web site needed an editor to manage all > the content (for consistency, style, flow, graphics, etc). I'm even more > convinced of that position today, although very few share that view so > I've decided to not argue the point actively any more. Maybe we'll get > there in the future. Maybe I'm wrong. > > > Take those bucks and buy back some shares or > >> give out some more tshirts, that'd help us all much more I think. >> >> Like I said, plenty of salt on that please. > > > Understood. :) > > I'm not sure if anyone else > >> feels the same. > > > > I would, too, actually. :) If the community is not interested, I'll drop > it and move on. There's plenty to do around here. :) I just wanted to > bring it up one last time now that we are open and out of the pilot phase. > >>>> Reguarding the rest, I can write when time permits. Plenty of us >>>> are producing useful information, but "articles" in the traditional >>>> sense conflict directly with technical blogging. Many of our blog >>>> entries could be slightly reformed and presto-change you've got an >>>> article. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree. But we need to lay out a 6 month or year long editorial plan >>> to pro-actively generate the content. We can also just re-work >>> previous blogs (the substantive ones) for articles, too. Good >>> suggestion. >> >> >> >> Is there any chance we could see a draft of this editorial plan? > > > I circulated drafts of the plan (which I wrote, not O'Reilly) back in > the early pilot days. Very little response so I didn't press it. It was > basically a list of article suggestions. I just worked with O'Reilly to > implement what we had, and so we got 11 articles (8 of which are posted > now with 3 to go). There is no plan right now, though. > > >> Perhaps if we could all take a look we could all see what parts of it >> we could contribute to and all pull together to provide real community >> content. It might not be as professional as if it were done by >> professionals, but it'll be ours. > > > > Yes. I'd like to create a *new* editorial plan -- if the community wants > this. Although I'm convinced we need this function, I'm not convinced > the community wants it. So, perhaps if we kick around a plan to produce > a series of articles in various categories we can all own it and > implement it. > >>>> The Driver Programming articles by Max are awesome, I'd love to see >>>> more of those. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> He has two more in the works. >>> >>> Didn't Rich have some articles in the pipe too? >>> >>> Rich did a dev piece for the Studio tools guys separate from what >>> I've been trying to do. >> >> >> >> Anyone have a url? (or if its unreleased a timeframe?) > > > > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/building_opensolaris/ > > >> >>>> benr. >>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris.org -- Ginnie Wray Technical Publications UBRMO5-3128 X.78889 virginia.wray at sun.com
