Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centosd...@gmail.com wrote: 2) Follow the currently more popular community model that is in use in other OSS projects. That means the wiki is generally open to anyone with an account. This model would yield a larger community of people willing to contribute, at the cost of potentially lower quality content (however, I don't not believe that will actually be the case). This model would be a shift in approach from where the project currently seems to be focused. That's why I asked some questions a few mails ago which nobody has even tried to answer yet :) As said, I'm torn between both models. Model 1 has some advantages where I'd like to be convinced that we can also get that with with model 2. The model for #2 has an escape valve, which is that all of the messy community stuff can happen in the wiki, while the official stuff that has been discussed here would live on the actual centos web site outside of the wiki. That already is the case (official Documentation is there). Cheers, Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ralph Angenendt ralph.angene...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:53 PM, R P Herrold herr...@centos.org wrote: By carrying two wiki, we avoid that workload, and can have a self-serve model for getting commits in the 'projects.' one, and the moderated approach on the vetted one. Bleh. And I mean really Bleh. Putting documentation into two different places absolutely sucks. Okay, we already do that with the docs we scrape from somewhere else, but that doesn't make it better in my view. Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:53 PM, R P Herrold herr...@centos.org wrote: By carrying two wiki, we avoid that workload, and can have a self-serve model for getting commits in the 'projects.' one, and the moderated approach on the vetted one. Bleh. And I mean really Bleh. Putting documentation into two different places absolutely sucks. agreed [... I would limit what we do to CentOS specific extension doco only ... but cannot attain consensus on that] -- but it sucks less badly than the abandoned mess at (I did a minimal fixup and threw up my hands in disgust -- what shall I do with it?): http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Xen/MoveNative2DomU We have a track record of putting support in lots of channels Compare: #centos, which I designed a centos-specific question focus, with a training aspect for purposes that are not general, and #centos-social for the back chatter to permit a 'relief valve' to point people at. As a result we have a vibrant #centos which is 'a little different' and MUCH more usable and useful than ##linux or some closed upstream focused 'competitive channels' -- the results attained over time do the talking. -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Ed Heron e...@heron-ent.com wrote: From my point of view, the process wasn't onerous in itself. The only issues I had/have are the sparse guidelines of acceptable content and the voracity of the reaction, by some, to what they viewed as unacceptable content. It appears there are multiple standards for content. This is true. While I'm for rather more content (as long as quality doesn't go down) others have a different view of that. And I think we have to find some common ground here. For aspiring content producers that suggest modification to existing content, those changes should go through the page's creator or maintainer or someone else in the edit group. If they describe the changes on this list, it should be a simple matter for someone else to implement or possibly give them access to that page. Once those people have sufficient history, I assume adding them to the edit group so they can make changes directly would follow. This is roughly how it is working at the moment, if I didn't misunderstand you. Cheers, Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
From: Ralph Angenendt, Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:22 AM On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Ed Heron e...@heron-ent.com wrote: From my point of view, the process wasn't onerous in itself. The only issues I had/have are the sparse guidelines of acceptable content and the voracity of the reaction, by some, to what they viewed as unacceptable content. It appears there are multiple standards for content. This is true. While I'm for rather more content (as long as quality doesn't go down) others have a different view of that. And I think we have to find some common ground here. It appears that the people who are preferring the more restricted content guidelines are saying they will accept content separation. But having 2 separate content systems seems redundant. Is there a way to have a section (directory) of the wiki that is core and an expanded section? This might satisfy both sides? For aspiring content producers that suggest modification to existing content, those changes should go through the page's creator or maintainer or someone else in the edit group. If they describe the changes on this list, it should be a simple matter for someone else to implement or possibly give them access to that page. Once those people have sufficient history, I assume adding them to the edit group so they can make changes directly would follow. This is roughly how it is working at the moment, if I didn't misunderstand you. I'm summarizing intentionally. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current process. Being a recent addition to the 'edit group', even though it took some time to get there, it wasn't too bad. A little patience was all I really needed. Opening up the content to the public could put a rather large burden on the existing admin/edit group. Going through the current process should result in greater longevity of contributors compared to instant edit access. Making edit access easier for people 'passing through' could result in more orphaned content. The only thing that comes to mind is possibly allowing someone to edit a page without committing the changes. These could be the equivalent of submitted patches pending approval. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ed Heron wrote: It appears that the people who are preferring the more restricted content guidelines are saying they will accept content separation. But having 2 separate content systems seems redundant. Is there a way to have a section (directory) of the wiki that is core and an expanded section? This might satisfy both sides? Goodness -- wiki.centos.org and wiki.projects.centos.org is too hard or better somehow than wiki.centos.org and wiki.centos.org/projects/ where './projects' content carries a 'this content is not as carefully vetted' disclaimer? The second approach sounds like more of a slam than living in a 'projects.' sub-domain to me. A refactoring of the personal homepages will have to happen in any event, and perhaps we should simply have a './personal/' in the main wiki and move all such into it ... but this then carries the expense of refactoring all the 'at the ./' point documentary narrative down a level as well. ACL errors will be harder to avoid as well By carrying two wiki, we avoid that workload, and can have a self-serve model for getting commits in the 'projects.' one, and the moderated approach on the vetted one. My $0.02 -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM, R P Herrold herr...@centos.org wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ed Heron wrote: It appears that the people who are preferring the more restricted content guidelines are saying they will accept content separation. But having 2 separate content systems seems redundant. Is there a way to have a section (directory) of the wiki that is core and an expanded section? This might satisfy both sides? Goodness -- wiki.centos.org and wiki.projects.centos.org is too hard or better somehow than wiki.centos.org and wiki.centos.org/projects/ where './projects' content carries a 'this content is not as carefully vetted' disclaimer? The second approach sounds like more of a slam than living in a 'projects.' sub-domain to me. A refactoring of the personal homepages will have to happen in any event, and perhaps we should simply have a './personal/' in the main wiki and move all such into it ... but this then carries the expense of refactoring all the 'at the ./' point documentary narrative down a level as well. ACL errors will be harder to avoid as well By carrying two wiki, we avoid that workload, and can have a self-serve model for getting commits in the 'projects.' one, and the moderated approach on the vetted one. My $0.02 -- Russ herrold All of this debate is dancing around the real issue, and that issue is how the project defines itself. That definition should be arrived at by both the project maintainers and also the community of users. The way I see it, there are 2 main choices: 1) Run the project with a 1-way push model where all the participants are vetted and push out software, documentation, etc... out to all of the users. This places all of the burden on the project maintainers, but the end result is potentially higher quality documentation and product. This seems to be the general model followed right now. One cannot really contribute until going through the approval process, but you make sure that each page has an owner and and the quality is (theoretically) better. 2) Follow the currently more popular community model that is in use in other OSS projects. That means the wiki is generally open to anyone with an account. This model would yield a larger community of people willing to contribute, at the cost of potentially lower quality content (however, I don't not believe that will actually be the case). This model would be a shift in approach from where the project currently seems to be focused. The model for #2 has an escape valve, which is that all of the messy community stuff can happen in the wiki, while the official stuff that has been discussed here would live on the actual centos web site outside of the wiki. If you just so happen to use wiki software to run that official part of the web site, then that should not be called the wiki. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Dag Wieers d...@wieers.com wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: Could it be that entry to collaborate is not low enough to make it work ? If you have too many rules, people might be afraid/unable to make the necessary fix. Especially if it requires sending a mail and decision by committee. Um. Since when does it, when you want to make a fix? As said, there are around 80 people who already are able to fix things all over the place. Which does not require to send a mail anywhere, but just making a fix. My worries are that you are taking something for granted that is caused by the current rules, to keep those rules in place. Can you be a bit more vague? Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
Ralph Angenendt wrote on 10/05/2009 04:40 AM: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Dag Wieers d...@wieers.com wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: Could it be that entry to collaborate is not low enough to make it work ? If you have too many rules, people might be afraid/unable to make the necessary fix. Especially if it requires sending a mail and decision by committee. Um. Since when does it, when you want to make a fix? As said, there are around 80 people who already are able to fix things all over the place. Which does not require to send a mail anywhere, but just making a fix. I seem to recall someone pointing out that few of those 80 are active. Why not bring in some fresh blood and new energy? If 80 have the privilege why not 85 or 100? If the view is that there are too many open accounts with global edit rights, then restrict those that have not contributed in X years, but lower the barriers to entry for new contributors. My worries are that you are taking something for granted that is caused by the current rules, to keep those rules in place. Can you be a bit more vague? I think you may be confusing vagueness with a bit of a language barrier. We can't all be native English speakers, and email (Wiki, Forum, ...) communication is hard enough when everybody's first language is the same. Dag's point that more openness could be a good thing seems pretty clear to me. Phil ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Phil Schaffner philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote: Ralph Angenendt wrote on 10/05/2009 04:40 AM: Um. Since when does it, when you want to make a fix? As said, there are around 80 people who already are able to fix things all over the place. Which does not require to send a mail anywhere, but just making a fix. I seem to recall someone pointing out that few of those 80 are active. Why not bring in some fresh blood and new energy? If 80 have the privilege why not 85 or 100? If the view is that there are too many open accounts with global edit rights, then restrict those that have not contributed in X years, but lower the barriers to entry for new contributors. I am adding new users to that on a permanent basis - normally you are on there after you created your second article or have had some interesting suggestions on here. Dag's point that more openness could be a good thing seems pretty clear to me. Okay, than I did misunderstand that. Mind, that I'm not native speaker either. Then *everybody* please be not vague: How would openness work in your view a) without compromising the wiki's spam-free-ness (?) b) with making people adhere to a CC license beforehand c) with making sure that the content quality doesn't get worse (I think we have a rather high quality at the moment) d) with making sure that there's no off topic content I'd really be interested to hear that. I have a view how that can work, but that is a view which still makes some people better than other people - and will create more work for them. I know we had that discussion about a year and a half ago, and I have some ideas - but the result from last year was, that there would be around 5 to 6 people who watch over the content. I think that that isn't enough. Convince me (and possibly others, but if I'm convinced I'll push that further) =:) Cheers, Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
From: Ralph Angenendt, Monday, October 05, 2009 9:54 AM ... Okay, than I did misunderstand that. Mind, that I'm not native speaker either. Then *everybody* please be not vague: I think my last post might have fallen in to the vague category... I was trying to say that as one of those new members, I was trying to ease into the job. New members are being added... How would openness work in your view a) without compromising the wiki's spam-free-ness (?) b) with making people adhere to a CC license beforehand c) with making sure that the content quality doesn't get worse (I think we have a rather high quality at the moment) d) with making sure that there's no off topic content I'd really be interested to hear that. I have a view how that can work, but that is a view which still makes some people better than other people - and will create more work for them. I know we had that discussion about a year and a half ago, and I have some ideas - but the result from last year was, that there would be around 5 to 6 people who watch over the content. I think that that isn't enough. ... From my point of view, the process wasn't onerous in itself. The only issues I had/have are the sparse guidelines of acceptable content and the voracity of the reaction, by some, to what they viewed as unacceptable content. It appears there are multiple standards for content. I don't have a problem with easing people into the 'trusted' position of the edit group. It is already possible to get a user account and access to create a user page with little 'qualification'. For new conttibutors, this provides a sandbox to both say something about themselves and produce content, or spam. For aspiring content producers that suggest modification to existing content, those changes should go through the page's creator or maintainer or someone else in the edit group. If they describe the changes on this list, it should be a simple matter for someone else to implement or possibly give them access to that page. Once those people have sufficient history, I assume adding them to the edit group so they can make changes directly would follow. The only people excluded by the current process are the impatient. This is a long-term project. Impatience is for more transitory media, like on-line chat and lists/forums. The world isn't going to end if a page isn't updated or access isn't granted for a few days. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centosd...@gmail.com wrote: What you currently have is the lock model, and with few admins the idea of opening up the system seems like a bad one because those admins will need to deal with all those errors, but this is not the case. As soon as it's open, you'll have more people monitoring and more people who can fix errors as they are introduced. We already have 70 people who would be able to do so (no idea how many of these accounts are still in use). Do I see those going over pages? Rarely, it's nearly always the same persons. Could it be that entry to collaborate is not low enough to make it work ? If you have too many rules, people might be afraid/unable to make the necessary fix. Especially if it requires sending a mail and decision by committee. My worries are that you are taking something for granted that is caused by the current rules, to keep those rules in place. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Dag Wieers d...@wieers.com wrote: Could it be that entry to collaborate is not low enough to make it work ? If you have too many rules, people might be afraid/unable to make the necessary fix. Especially if it requires sending a mail and decision by committee. My worries are that you are taking something for granted that is caused by the current rules, to keep those rules in place. I, for one, requested permission to edit a page, but by the time it was granted I had forgotten what I wanted to do. I understand that administering a community and protecting content is a challenge. I sympathize, even empathize. But, it is true that current culture limits growth. -- .!# RichardBronosky #!. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
Dear Russ. Why not granting Edit rights (and I mean full Edit Group Access) to anyone who has already contributed good stuff. Then there should be something like a Wiki Admin group which will track changes and correct them || start discussion on the MLs if necessary. because creating a problem and fixing it ex post is harder than not creating it in the first place It's not about creating problems but finding solutions. If no one has the right to fix errors in articles and if every minor change has to be discussed over and over again on the ML, it's the dead of a vital wiki. Then you need a CMS instead, call it docs.centos.org and leave the community alone at 'projects.centos.org/community' Best Regards Marcus ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centosd...@gmail.com wrote: What you currently have is the lock model, and with few admins the idea of opening up the system seems like a bad one because those admins will need to deal with all those errors, but this is not the case. As soon as it's open, you'll have more people monitoring and more people who can fix errors as they are introduced. We already have 70 people who would be able to do so (no idea how many of these accounts are still in use). Do I see those going over pages? Rarely, it's nearly always the same persons. Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Marcus Moeller m...@marcus-moeller.de wrote: It's not about creating problems but finding solutions. If no one has the right to fix errors in articles There are around 80 people who have that right *right now*. Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Will Fitch w...@phpfever.com wrote: Dear Russ. It's not about creating problems but finding solutions. If no one has the right to fix errors in articles and if every minor change has to be discussed over and over again on the ML, it's the dead of a vital wiki. Then you need a CMS instead, call it docs.centos.org and leave the community alone at 'projects.centos.org/community' +1 -20 Creating diversity is not always a good thing. In this case it really isn't. Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
+1 -20 This continuing drama is beginning to remind me of the Miller Great taste, less filling commercials of old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Lite)... It's the same damn beer/CentOS people! ;) [?] 347.png___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
From: Ralph Angenendt, Friday, October 02, 2009 6:11 AM We already have 70 people who would be able to do so (no idea how many of these accounts are still in use). Do I see those going over pages? Rarely, it's nearly always the same persons. I'm OK with helping to update/maintain the wiki. I've made a couple of minor changes and I started on a revision of the PXE stuff. Since much of the PXE articles are not core, but a generic discussion of how to configure it and related software, I'm interested in the result of this discussion. In general, I'm asking myself, How deep do I jump in and how fast? I don't want to step on toes or take articles in non-intended directions. I certainly don't want to create work for others if my changes aren't desired by forcing admins to roll back my changes. Or, would you rather I made the changes I think need to be made, attempt to describe them in the space provided and allow others to censure me if I wander or mangle? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Steve Bonds 05s0pq...@sneakemail.com wrote: As requested on http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute, here is my info: # your FirstnameLastname username [SteveBonds] # the proposed subject of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] # the proposed location of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] I'll branch out from here. Maybe. While I understand the problem with spammers, asking each user to send each proposed page to the list for creation, then wait until it's created, and only then get to edit... is pretty onerous compared to other options. -- Steve ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
Grrr, let me try with a non-empty mail :) On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Steve Bonds 05s0pq...@sneakemail.com wrote: As requested on http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute, here is my info: # your FirstnameLastname username [SteveBonds] # the proposed subject of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] Well, yes, go ahead with that ... # the proposed location of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] I'll branch out from here. Maybe. While I understand the problem with spammers, asking each user to send each proposed page to the list for creation, then wait until it's created, and only then get to edit... is pretty onerous compared to other options. Yeah, true. Maybe I should really try to get that going. Watch this space for a call for Editors :) Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
Steve Bonds wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner-at-IEEE.org |CentOS| ... wrote: On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 16:25 -0700, Steve Bonds wrote: As requested on http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute, here is my info: # your FirstnameLastname username [SteveBonds] # the proposed subject of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] # the proposed location of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] I'll branch out from here. Maybe. While I understand the problem with spammers, asking each user to send each proposed page to the list for creation, then wait until it's created, and only then get to edit... is pretty onerous compared to other options. Agreed, and there have been discussions of opening the process. For now it's a meritocracy. Follow the process, become known to the community, make some good contributions, then ask for a higher level of access. Chances are it will be granted. Welcome to centos-docs! Phil P.S. Also develop a thick skin. :-) This could be a proving-ground for technical writers in-training, and the constructive criticism can sometimes be a bit heavy, but it is generally well-intended. Thanks, Phil. I've been on the Internet for 20 years. I could loan my skin out to elephants. Well... most days. :-) -- Steve Welcome Steve :) Nothing much to add above what Phil has already said, other than to say welcome. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
Dear Russ, Seriously, to me, I've been thinking about it the source of my concern for the last couple of weeks, and the tension comes down to 'core' v 'adjunct' and has a reasonably simple resolution -- split the two, and put all non-core material in a 'projects.centos.org' sub domain That would permit a clear division of 'official' content -- rebuilds of upstream doco, an authoritative 'watched' wiki component for docoing CentOS specific variants, a target to point to as to recurring IRC, forum, etc issues, and another place open much more widely (in: x.projects. ... ) for whatever the cat wants to drag in. I'll happily ignore what happens in 'projects', and the 'official' retains merit without pollution I am not sure if splitting the 'Community' from the project would make sense. Why not granting Edit rights (and I mean full Edit Group Access) to anyone who has already contributed good stuff. Then there should be something like a Wiki Admin group which will track changes and correct them || start discussion on the MLs if necessary. Best Regards Marcus ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:26:40AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Phil Schaffner wrote: ... P.S. Also develop a thick skin. :-) This could be a proving-ground for technical writers in-training, and the constructive criticism can sometimes be a bit heavy, but it is generally well-intended. As one of the lead mosquito's [1], I resemble that remark (One pictures Russ bowing to the audience here.) Seriously, to me, I've been thinking about it the source of my concern for the last couple of weeks, and the tension comes down to 'core' v 'adjunct' and has a reasonably simple resolution -- split the two, and put all non-core material in a 'projects.centos.org' sub domain After the last flame go round, I communicated with the head of the Arch Wiki, asking how they filtered content and so on. They kindly replied, saying that what had happened was this. First, there were three and only three people who basically redid the whole wiki. Then, they were burnt out and gave the task this this person. (The one with whom I was corresponding). I think that is part of it, one, or at most 3 (more or less like-minded) people making the decisions. To overly simplify, one esteemed member might feel that one should just put the steps for installing program X on CentOS, and once the yum install is done (or whatever little tweaks have to be made afterwards), the user should then be sent to program X's website. Someone else, equally esteemed (in both cases, having earned their esteem by merit--use of esteemed here is not sarcastic), feels that the article should then tell the newcomer what to do with their new program--perhaps because program X's website is outdated, or overly complex, or for whatever reason. So, the author of the article gets caught between two esteemed people, wondering, perhaps, if they made a mistake. Meanwhile, it makes the rest of us who view the drama, far less apt to even consider offering an article to the CentOS wiki. So, Russ' suggestion most certainly has merit, if it could stop this situation. I think section that actually tells you what to do with something after installing it will get far more traffic, but that's as may be. further useful content snipped--if you didn't read it the first time, you're unlikely to read it now. :) -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Buffy: Cordelia, your mouth is open, sound is coming from it, this is never good. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM, R P Herrold herr...@centos.org wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote: Why not granting Edit rights (and I mean full Edit Group Access) to anyone who has already contributed good stuff. Then there should be something like a Wiki Admin group which will track changes and correct them || start discussion on the MLs if necessary. because creating a problem and fixing it ex post is harder than not creating it in the first place -- Russ herrold Spam issues aside, that is the very concept of Wikipedia and other wikis, and also for all modern VCS tools, and most of them have proven that line of thinking really doesn't hold up. Old VCS tools used the locking model to try to prevent errors before they happened. This created an issue every time someone needed a file, even if they didn't need to change it, and pushed the problem onto everyone all the time. You also needed a dedicated admin who could resolve old locks, etc Modern VCS systems recognize that the problem should only be pushed onto users if there's actually a conflict, and it allows everyone else to work while avoiding problems most of the time. What you currently have is the lock model, and with few admins the idea of opening up the system seems like a bad one because those admins will need to deal with all those errors, but this is not the case. As soon as it's open, you'll have more people monitoring and more people who can fix errors as they are introduced. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Brian Mathis wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM, R P Herrold herr...@centos.org wrote: herrold: because creating a problem and fixing it ex post is harder than not creating it in the first place Spam issues aside, that is the very concept of Wikipedia and other wikis, and also for all modern VCS tools, and most of them have proven that line of thinking really doesn't hold up. That's clearly one opinion but not stats based that I can see -- it is not observationally true that I can see -- As a counter example, recall a wiki entry I saw on the Wikipedia declaring Mike Harris [the upstream's long time X maintainer] to be the 42nd Emperor of Ontario snip more theory ... As soon as it's open, you'll have more people monitoring and more people who can fix errors as they are introduced. I'm one of the ones reading all commits and doing rough cut triage, and the theory you put forth is not the reality I see, even with the present 'find and ask model' Check out the created and abandoned xen articles in our wiki -- who cares enough to stop writing new pages and complete fixups? The ML pre-vetting is a talkers debating society by and large, from what I see in commits. ;) As I suggest: If it is not core variances, it goes to 'projects' wiki, and I'll ignore it and whatever else the cat drags in (with an appropriate subscription rule) so long as it has a warning sign for the unwary my $0.02 - Russ herrold ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
As requested on http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute, here is my info: # your FirstnameLastname username [SteveBonds] # the proposed subject of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] # the proposed location of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] I'll branch out from here. Maybe. While I understand the problem with spammers, asking each user to send each proposed page to the list for creation, then wait until it's created, and only then get to edit... is pretty onerous compared to other options. -- Steve ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 16:25 -0700, Steve Bonds wrote: As requested on http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute, here is my info: # your FirstnameLastname username [SteveBonds] # the proposed subject of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] # the proposed location of your Wiki contribution(s) [Personal Page] I'll branch out from here. Maybe. While I understand the problem with spammers, asking each user to send each proposed page to the list for creation, then wait until it's created, and only then get to edit... is pretty onerous compared to other options. Agreed, and there have been discussions of opening the process. For now it's a meritocracy. Follow the process, become known to the community, make some good contributions, then ask for a higher level of access. Chances are it will be granted. Welcome to centos-docs! Phil P.S. Also develop a thick skin. :-) This could be a proving-ground for technical writers in-training, and the constructive criticism can sometimes be a bit heavy, but it is generally well-intended. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
