David Baron wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, fantasai wrote:
> > Aaron Leventhal wrote:
> > >
> > > By taking a close inventory, setting the bar high for the new
> > > site, and really thinking about each doc that gets to make it to the new
> > > site, we can make sure that bad, incomplete and inaccurate stuff doesn't
> > > make it over.
> >
> > I suggest we set up a review system similar to the one for Mozilla
> > development.
>
> Raising the bar for getting things onto mozilla.org would probably only
> discourage people from trying to put things there. Unlike the mozilla
> source tree, documents can be just as useful if they're hosted
> somewhere else.
~ Are you objecting to the height of the bar
or the difficulty you perceive in clearing it? ~
re: good writing skills
i dont wanna log into moz + find writing like this w/ typeos
mispelled words no punctaution + shorthand altho i dont mind
common abbrev for eg tech terms it shoud read @ a higher level
thant this
re: good coding skills
I also don't want to find HTML files coded with semantic elements
used for presentation, presentational elements used for semantics,
and table-based layouts other than the wrapper. I'm not speaking
hypothetically here; there are some horrendously coded documents
on mozilla.org that even look terrible in Mozilla.
I'm not requiring a lengthy record of good docs; generally,
submitting a single document is enough to prove whether one
will write/code at an acceptable level.
I put such relatively stringent requirements on adding files to
help ensure the integrity of the site. People have suggested that
we base much of the navigation on the site structure--to provide
more context sensitive navigation links. If everybody can just
add any files they want wherever they want, we'll wind up with
the same sort of mess that characterizes the current site--except
it will be visibly coded into the docs. Placing a review on the
addition of files to the site forces people to think about where
a given document really belongs before committing it to the server.
AFAICT, the addition of documents to mozilla.org isn't so
time-sensitive that a delay of a day or two becomes critical.
> If you create elaborate requirements for content on mozilla.org,
> people (like me) will just put documents elsewhere.
I can post numerous proposals and you can tell me whether I'm
too harsh or too lenient. With luck, we'll find a suitable plan
in three to four weeks. If it's not too much trouble, though,
I'd rather you explained what makes it too elaborate and what
an acceptable level of strictness would be.
>
> If we want to ensure the accuracy of documents on mozilla.org, I think
> it would probably be better to have module owners / maintainers look at
> the documents after they're checked in, if they feel the need. (Not
> that I actually expect such review to happen much, since (on most
> topics) we seem to have enough trouble getting documentation in the
> first place, never mind reviewing it.)
>
Sure. If that's how things work out, it's fine.
