On 11/25/2010 10:02 AM, Jakub Witkowski wrote: > The reason behind my choice of CMS was that it would allow many people > working together on the content without each and every of them needing > direct access to the underlying storage, which should help improve the > content in the long run - for example, it would be much easier to > update documentation to match current code, simply because the > developer working on a given feature can directly edit the pertinent > document without having to deal with website innards.
Just so you are aware. Documentation for OpenAFS. Everything under http://docs.openafs.org/ is managed in the same git repository as the source code. We manage documentation update review exactly the same way we manage source code review. We use http://gerrit.openafs.org/. >> # All this does not mean that we do not need a refurbished web site. >> > In the end, the real question is, do we have a dedicated person (or > group) that are documentation writers and each and every change to > official manuals must pass under their fingers or do we want to do it > in a more opportunistic, more distributed way? I do not believe this is the question. Documentation is already written in a distributed manner in which any member of the community can contribute to documentation using the editor of their choice and git. > A non-interactive web site naturally lends itself to the former, while > a more interactive one will help foster the other. The web site serves a very different purpose. It is a mechanism for: * explaining what OpenAFS is - why should your organization use OpenAFS? * communicating news (newsletters, security bulletins, new releases, etc) * providing search, archive, and registration interfaces to the mailing lists * access to binary and source package downloads * gateway to the community wiki * pointing people at the resources they need to obtain help * explaining the openafs development roadmap * explaining how community members can contribute * MOST IMPORTANT: give visitors the confidence that OpenAFS should be taken seriously and is not going to disappear overnight The OpenAFS web site really does need a serious overhaul. We have known that for the better part of eight years. I still believe that FreeBSD has the best open source project web site and would like OpenAFS to model ours on their design. http://www.freebsd.org/ Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
