As far as "who is allowed to manage a given page of notes", I think the bare minimum should beDidou tries to propose some system, where notes will be categorized "to be integrated", so they can sooner become part of the manual.
1. Those who know PHP, and the note subject, well.
2. Those who have experience with writing PHP's documentation (preferably). If notes editors are also writing documentation, *most* of the good notes can be deleted as they are integrated.
How does that make them part of the manual sooner? Are doc editors required to look for those tags? Are note/doc people required to work on those categories first?
Just because something is "labeled", does it change anything?
My practice when I was editing (a very little number of) notes, I left those needed integration, because I only had time to delete bad ones. If I would be able to mark them "to be integrated", I would have done it.
My practice would be that if it *wasn't* deleted, it should be integrated. If it's good enough to have on a manual page, it's good enough to be in the manual.
Rather than adding to the workload for each note, how about correcting the actions of the abuser themselves?Erm, what do you mean?
I am "ronabop".
Every note I delete is marked with that name.
If I am deleting thousands of notes, out of a grudge, anger, malice, hatred....
Am *I* the problem, or is the notes system?
If I am behaving poorly, should we mistrust *all* notes editors.... or just me?
Rather than making each editor do more work, why not ban my actions?
I think there are probably many notes, which deserve to be there. There are some notes actually submitted by manual authors, because they thought that it would not fit into the manual, but rather as a note. There are special things, like how to fix some bug affecting PHP in Apache 2.x, and the like. These are too specific to get into the manual, while they are important, and actual stuff.One more occasion to fit our readers needs is lost here.Can you provide some examples? I perceive the optimal manual as a manual without *any* notes. If the manual is good enough, no additional notes and explanations would ever be needed. So, if a page *has* notes, that is a sign that more effort should be applied to improving the documentation... to a point where PHP no longer requires "external help".
some notes disserve to be on the users notes, without being deleted nor integrated.
I think PHP and apache 2.x versions is a bad example. I think it belongs *not* as a note, but as a web page about PHP and apache 2.x. Maybe apache 2.X will be a failed project, but, until then, why should it *not* be a manual page?
Our users are mostly convinced that the user notes often contain valuable information (more often than crap). We get requests all the time to integrate them in the downloadable versions. I had created the special CHM version, and the feedback I received always pointed to the great inclusion of the user notes.... This may be an indication that the manual is weak at many places, yes. But it is also an indication IMHO that user notes have their own place.
I don't think that this means the notes are "weak", I think it means that the manual is weak.
Ronald Chmara Ronin Professional Consulting LLC 678-530-9542 "Shall we play a game?" --Joshua
