On 05/16/2016 02:43 AM, Nikola M wrote:
Posting any "guides" and "roles" inside Openindiana without consultation
of others and wider audience is simply arrogant and destructive to
Openindiana and that represents TROLLING of Openindiana.
Anyone wanting to make OI a prison for "roles" and "policies" in
privately handled conspiration-like consultations behind closed doors is
doing things against OI's and OI's users personal freedoms.
Nikolam,
My identification and specification of contributor roles is purely for
the sake of organization. It is not meant to limit anyone's personal
freedoms.
Identifying roles helps contributors better understand the different
ways in which someone can contribute. For example, most people may wish
to limit their activities to the role of content creator (author). They
may not be interested in performing tasks associated with the role of
'website developer' (one who extents the capabilities of the site), nor
tasks associate with the role of 'content reviewer' (one who reviews
pull requests).
All these roles are necessary for the site to succeed. Think of them
simply as organizational definitions to help guide the documentation effort.
You are not going to single-handed destroy positive community process
with the reviews, good intention to everyone, without isolationist
policies, freedom of contribution and a good will in general.
You are not allowed to police Openindiana contribution process.
If documentation resides in a GitHub repository, then someone has to
review the pull requests. It does not necessarily have to be me
performing this role, although I am the most likely candidate....unless
someone else wishes to do it.
While on the subject of content review, the lack of such review is
unfortunately one of the shortcomings of the OI Wiki.
Personal freedoms should not equal chaos.
What I mean is....for a user guide to be useful and considered credible,
there needs to be a methodical consistency in how content is written,
styled, and organized. A project leader (or in this case, a content
reviewer) is a required element of the process.
After all, people do not submit source code to the mainline branch
without at least some degree of review.
Why should documentation be any different?
In fact, the FreeBSD project has a review process. The OpenSolaris
Project had one too. What prohibits the OpenIndiana project from
adopting such a process as well?
In summary, lack of organizational process = chaos, and chaos is
unlikely to ever result in FreeBSD quality systems documentation.
You ignored ALL availble suggestions and also you refused to accept
Opensolaris Docs PDL license that you need to accept before working on
them.
I don't understand why you keep mentioning this.
When have I refused to accept the PDL license?
I simply questioned whether the PDL was relevant to new documentation
and whether new documentation really needed to follow it (or whether
some other license might be more appropriate).
In regards to the PDL, to whom does one submit a signed contributor
agreement? And did you (or anyone else) ever sign a contributor
agreement before you began writing content for the Wiki or anywhere else
on OpenIndiana.org? Under what license is this content licensed, or is
it even licensed at all?
If the content is in fact PDL licensed, who manages this process and
where are these contributor agreements stored?
These are all valid questions.
Michael
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
