Hi :) This team consistently does far more work than most other Documentation Teams i've seen in almost any other project. MS Office only manages 1 set in 3-4 years.
Looking down the list of Published Guides we can see that all guides (apart from 2) have had at least 1 completed version in the 4.x.x line. GS has had 2. Writer is over half-way through it's 2nd. It's only the Base Handbook that hasn't had any and frankly i'm impressed that there is one at all. It would be nice to get a new one but it might be better to skip several branches and get the one that covers the newer back-end. It seems a good policy to deliberately skip at least 1 branch, maybe 2. Lets say each Guide can skip 2 branches quite comfortably. That way there is under half the guides to do each time. That seems a much more realistic goal to me and means you can feel justifiably chuffed with the amazing amount of work that you do rather than feeling bad about not having achieved unrealistic targets. So lets say that since the Draw Guide already has a 4.1.x branch "done and dusted " that it does not need a 4.2.x and probably not a 4.3.x either. Any changes or additional functionality can be pieced together by users if they can't figure it out. The existing Guide gives plenty of help for people to understand how Draw works so people should be able to figure out how other functionality fits in and what the over-all ways of thinking are. The Math Guide's latest was the 4.0.x so that could probably use a 4.3.x. It might be really good to finish off the Writer's 4.2.x since it's over halfway done already. Or would it be easier to move straight to a 4.3.x? or just leave it as is and leave it until the 4.4.x and then try to do a complete guide for that branch? If we do decide to set a policy of skipping every other branch then skipping the GS makes a lot of sense. Do we really need a 4.3.x for the GS? I think most people are going to find that the existing 4.2.x GS Guide is more than enough. If we set a policy then new people can be guided to work on Guides that fit into that policy. Obviously if they have strong reasons for going outside policy then they can try that and it would be very positive but many people starting here want to be given tasks so that they can become familiar with the process and feel like part of a team. If we decide to set a policy of skipping every other branch for ALL guides then for the 4.3.x branch we would need; Writer, Calc, Math, Draw and maybe Base-Handbook for the 4.4.x we would need; GS, Impress, If we choose to skip 2 branches for each guide, except for the GS and maybe Writer then we 'only' need a 4.3.x for; Writer, Math and maybe the Base handbook For the 4.4.x we would need; GS, maybe Writer, Calc, Draw. So skipping 2 branches for all but the GS and Writer would make it smoother and more manageable. It'd mean that when the Base Handbook needs to be done that there are not so many other distractions. Skipping only 1 branch but for all guides would mean more hard-work soonest but would leave more room for other types of documentation in the 4.4.x phase. So what do people think? Should we deliberately set a policy of not doing a full set for each release (since that is proving impossible anyway)? If so should the team aim to do half or about a third of the guides each time? Regards from Tom :) -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: documentation+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted