In message <v03010d00b1df9f71f41e@[209.96.178.25]>, "Kevin B.
Hendricks" writes:
I have never used Wiki Wiki Web. . .
Kevin,
Wiki Wiki is amazing. But with what little I've done with it, I would
say that it demands more philosophical conformance out of the user
than FAQ-o-matic does. While *I'm* willing to adjust that way, I don't
know if I could expect all of our otherwise generous FAQ contributors
to do so. I think Wiki is better suited for a tightly-knit community
of true geeks who're serious about getting on the same wavelength (to
use some fun 60s terminology). Linux JDK users are that and everything
else in between. Perhaps the FAQ-o-matic is less intrusive on the
psyche, and therefore it may be more appropriate for the Blackdown JDK
project.
The only drawback is that someone periodically has to go remove
old FAQ questions/answers that are out of date otherwise things
get a bit cluttered.
I sort of figured that could be a problem. But right now I feel like
a barrier for disseminating information, and that's not what I wanted
when I started to maintain the FAQ. It might be more effective to
fix problems after they occur and reap the benefits of all the good
things that would happen meanwhile.
Perhaps we'd need an official policy about us modifying FAQ entries
after the user-community has made changes. A set of accuracy and
ethics criteria. I would suggest something like the following:
o Your entries and modifications to other entries may be changed by
the FAQ maintainer for aesthetic or clarification purposes.
o Your modifications may be removed by the FAQ maintainer if they are:
--- Incorrect.
--- Slanderous or divisive (absolutely no flames, please).
--- Vague or inapplicable.
--- If they disregard Sun's or any other related vendor's NDAs.
o Arbitrary changes by the FAQ maintainer to your modifications are
negotiable after the fact, but please respect his/her and the
Blackdown JDK project's final decisions.
This might seem heavy-handed, but I don't want Blackdown people to
lose the ability to fix the FAQ or get sucked into a long arbitration
process about any changes it deems necessary for information to stay
accurate.
Having said all of that, I'd probably want the option for anyone to
edit the FAQ with a real E-mail address to be able to do so. Having to
obtain a password from the maintainer would likely impede progress.
Isn't that how most linux software development works?
I agree, but I'd like at least Karl's opinion on this, and possibly
Steve's before I start working on the conversion in earnest.
I think if you create the right topics/structure and seed it with
the current FAQ, you would have a very usefule FAQ that does not
require lots of maintainance.
Once Karl (and possibly SBB) agree, I'd be interested in hearing
suggestions about how the current FAQ's structure could change to
make it more conducive to being a dynamic document. I'll talk to
Jon at this point, too.
Karl: FAQ-o-matic does require things to happen on the server (such as
new directories to be created, cron jobs to run, and so forth). I
could probably do all of this with my user permissions, or we could
create a new generic user account for it.
Meanwhile, I'm still going to work on the FAQ by hand.
By the way, I think Wiki is fascinating in and of itself. I've met
Ward Cunningham, and I'm not surprised that he's quietly unleashed
something that has the power to make such an impact on a group of
people.
SteveMW
