----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lori Ayre" <loria...@gmail.com> > To: "Dan Scott" <d...@coffeecode.net> > Cc: "Evergreen Discussion Group" > <open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>, "Lori Bowen Ayre" > <lori.a...@galecia.com>, open-ils-documentat...@list.georgialibraries.org > Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 10:38:28 AM
<snip> > > Well, IMO, documentation that institutions pay to have written for > > would ideally be developed as part of the community process, the > > same > > way that the software itself is developed as a community process. > > > Okay. I guess I considered what was proposed (accept the draft > provided as is and edit as needed) an acceptable community process. Am > I missing something? Are you suggesting a different workflow for > documenting new development? </snip> I think what Dan is saying (and I agree, if so) is that when GPLS (or whoever) contracts with ESI (or whomever) for documentation, that the process of writing the documentation is as open as the process of writing the software. That is, rather than having the documentation vendor work behind closed doors, then releasing the (mostly) finished documentation in one big hunk, the documentation vendor would be committing drafts, changes, additions, etc. all along so that the community could track it and use what tidbits are provided with the understanding that it is (like the software itself) in process, subject to change, and not ready for end users until it is cut and released. Dan - am I right? -- Chris Sharp PINES Program Manager Georgia Public Library Service 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (404) 235-7147 csh...@georgialibraries.org http://pines.georgialibraries.org/
