I think ultimately, it will be impossible to give attribution to all folks who have participated in creating documentation. I vote for the attribution statement in the introduction and appendix. I also think that if someone feels they have been left out of the attribution statement, maybe they can speak up and ask to be added to it. When you get into the game at this stage, it's pretty hard to figure out where things originated.
Cheryl Gould ate: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:28:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Karen Collier <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] Documentation updates To: Documentation discussion for Evergreen software <[email protected]> Message-ID: <187101192.51461.1281551285350.javamail.r...@zimbra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I'm a bit leery of mixing attribution within the main body of the documentation. It could get pretty unwieldy if we're putting attribution statements on every page, and how do you decide which pages warrant their own attribution statement and which don't? Particularly after all the "adding, mashing, mixing, remixing, revising, editing, etc" that Robert refers to it could become a real mess. If SITKA and other contributors are amenable, I think it would be preferable to limit the attribution statements to a statement in the Introduction (http://libdog.mohawkcollege.ca/evergreen_documentation/draft/html/pt01.html) that directs readers to the appendix devoted specifically to recognizing contributors. We haven't created that appendix just yet, but it's probably time. Thoughts? Agreement? Disagreement? Thanks, Karen _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
