On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Adam Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 03:39 PM, jungle Boogie wrote: > > I would call that a wiki, not only inside fossil-scm but in general. > > I am inclined to think that a wiki probably isn't sufficient for many > projects. What I am casually proposing (just brainstorming, really) is a > documentation framework that supports several different types of user > (annotation) and developer (modification) involvement, all regulated by > policy automation and human/system assessment, modeling and analysis. > (Too much razzle-dazzle?) > > I started to sketch some diagrams earlier but ended up exploring > [something like] enterprise architectures for various > developer(s)/maintainer(s)/user(s) social organization. (See the work of > [Max Weber][1] and [Karl Müller][2]). > > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_classification_of_authority > [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._M%C3%BCller > > Making the operations (policies, procedures, etc) of the system > explicit, and the assessments and measurements quantifiable, all with > significant automation support, once bootstrapped, a project could > continue with little human involvement. If the documentation system > includes pedagogical information and methods sufficient to train users > to be maintainers and developers, such a project could endure the > vicissitudes of interest. > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
