Just a couple of notes:
Gervase Markham wrote: > - it can be improved and fixed incrementally It *can* be. Which doesn't mean that it is. You know and I know and everyone here knows that the process is often out of sight, out of mind. How many docs are there now on mozilla.org that were put up half done and are still half done *years* later. > - it can be proof-read by many people quite quickly Once again, can!=is. > - bad documentation (while it's still in development) hurts no-one Depending on how you define "hurts" I don't think this is true. The people most likely to *read* the docs are the ones who need the information, not the ones who already know it and want to make sure that what's written in the doc is right. And getting the wrong information can make a body miserable. > - Docs can be changed at any time by anyone who sees a mistake The problem, of course, is deciding what constitutes "a mistake". > I think the best approach for a document is for one person or a group to > write it, and post it. Then, anyone can review it and send feedback, and > the document gets better and better organically. Release early, release > often. We don't need formal review and super-review which you have to > get before it's posted. I actually agree about the formal part, mostly because the process is, at best, deeply time-consuming, and the benefit/cost ratio probably isn't there. And, frankly, I'm not *so* concerned with correct grammar and "form". I think people get caught up in it and miss the point of the documentation, which is to make the work/lives of its consumers easier. Ellen
