Hi Brandon, Brandon Invergo <bran...@gnu.org> skribis:
>> Where could we host a wiki like this without causing confusion with >> official project content? > > Unless that decision changes, any wiki discussed here is necessarily > unofficial and any proposed content is in no way implicitly endorsed or > supported by the GNU Project. If we’re going meta, then we should start discussing what “official” means. And IMO, that’s the whole point: it’s time to define it. > Personally, I've found that in most cases wikis are an inefficient means > of active collaboration and discussion, that they accumulate outdated > cruft too quickly for casual documentation to be anything more than > ephemerally useful, and that they're too mutable for maintaining > important documents. Any best practices, advice, etc. would be better > placed in the coding standards or maintainers documents. Active > collaboration of small teams does not need a project-wide wiki and can > be more efficiently achieved by ad hoc methods. Core documentation of > the project should only be on the main website, and by definition it > should not be easy to change. I should say I very much agree with this statement, but I think Carlos is using the term “wiki” in a broad sense: documents under version control that can easily be published as web pages. Like Andy writes, I assume only GNU stakeholders would have write access to those documents, which makes it very different from the kind of wiki you’re referring to. Thanks, Ludo’.
