* Daniel Chetlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [29 Sep 2000 14:28]:
[...]
> There is a documentation list on perl.org; the last message posted to
> it was in July and it appears to be mostly for working on `Picking Up
> Perl'.
> > Work on perl6 stuff as it comes.
> >
> > In other words: I believe this RFC should be withdrawn from being a
> > Perl6 RFC and changed to being a general Perl community RFC.
> The problem I see with that is that I don't think we'll garner much
> enthusiasm. My idea was to go advertising it as a chance to contribute
> to Perl6, and then just stealthily put the updates into Perl5 as well.
Where appropriate, you could. But perl6 looks like it will have some
rather interesting ideas in it that would change the documentation in
some fundamental ways, methinks.
After all, if Camel 3 was a complete rewrite of Camel 2 (I was rather
impressed first of all by the number of pages added, and secondly by the
number of dollars added to the price) and that was only a step from 5.3
to 5.6 (picking a random earlier number), imagine how Camel 4 is going
to look.
The PODs will quite probably similarly change.
> > Find out who is in charge of the current documentation and work with
> > them?
> That would be Tom. I asked him in private email how he felt about
> this, as I didn't want to go over his head. He expressed concern about
> "hodgepodge editing". And I'm inclined to agree with that worry. But I
> don't think that we have much choice -- eventually, people are going
> to have to write documentation, and it's not likely to miraculously
> become less hodgepodge.
Have editors who know what they're doing. That's the easiest solution.
Work like the source: have a editor pumpking. Rotate every now and
again. Specify guidelines. *Plan*.
It's better than having something crap =)
Imagine a documentation working group that has two main subcommittees:
+ Perl 5 documentation, revision and updating.
+ Perl 6 documentation, creation and maintaining.
Within those you'd have groups of writers, editors and planners. The
three groups would overlap somewhat, as would the two main areas.
Your main trick is finding people willing to do some work. One thing the
planners would need to do is provide suggestions of topics. Many people
would be good at writing documentation, but would need a starting point
(i.e. "Bob, can you write me something about X?").
Might work. Might not. Time will tell. It always does =)
cheers,
--
\def\Koschei{Iain Truskett} % http://eh.org/~koschei/
\def\WhoAmI#1#2#3#4#5#6{\tt#2#3\it#4#5\bf#6\sl!}\def\i{I}\def\f{i}\def\I
{\if\i\f\f\else\i\fi}\def\Am{am} \WhoAmI?\I\ \Am\ \Koschei\bye!
