Hello, My next thoughts are written as is. Sorry for the messiness.
Le 9 octobre 2026 16:08:14 GMT+02:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <[email protected]> a écrit : >As as been said before, we accept contributions in formats other than >Texinfo, but perhaps that is not clear enough. I don't see how it is possible without somebody converting it to texinfo at some point. So it adds yet another step between ideation and publication. I just took 3 minutes trying to find any information on how to contribute to the Cookbook and did not find anything. So yes, it is not clear enough. >If reviews are a blocker, then, in a way, it’s working as intended: >reviews exist to consolidate knowledge together. >Reviews are the one thing that wikis typically lack. Indeed, this is even the point of wiki, to be able to publish widely before reviews. Reviews can only happen post-facto. >I’m also not sure friction to contribute alone explains why many prefer >to post how-tos on their personal blog post—we accept contributions to >https://guix.gnu.org/blog (Markdown!) as well, and they are sometimes a >starting point for new sections of the Cookbook. My (imaginated) target is not so much the people that already have a blog, than all those others that have no place to publish. >Bottom line: it’s okay that people post how-tos on their own sites, it’s >even the sign of a healthy growing community. Agreed. > To me the question is >more about the level of quality assurance we want for the “official” >documentation. Exactly. This is the main question. I think it would be a good tradeoff to have, less quality assurance for more contributions and involvement. This impacts also what we mean by "official documentation" (to me only the Guix Manual, and in a way the Guix blog). I see Cookbook as a compilation of various tips and tricks that doesn't have to be as up-to-date and precise than the rest. And I would rather have it in wiki to be able to amend it when I find something wrong in it. We could also have an official Cookbook as a curated list of articles drafted on a wiki. As an example of the "official" disclaimer 《 [...] wiki serves as a repository for user-contributed PostgreSQL documentation. The PostgreSQL project does not endorse any of the documentation on this site; it provides the wiki as a means for users to share documentation and notes developed from their own experiences with PostgreSQL. 》 One big negative point for wiki is managing spam. But some registration process can avoid most problems. I think I understand your fears of an unmanageable mass of bad out-of-date broken documentation and the reassurance given by review and commit rights. I think Guix already have a lot on its plate managing the amount of code contributions (even if it has improved a lot) and that being a lot more lenient on some community content would be an improvement. I could very well be mistaken, and as said earlier I am not volunteering to do any work on that so my words are just... words :-) Thanks for all your answers and for the great work behind Guix. avalenn
