Watt wrote:
>
> I'm interested in methods of collaborating on 'projects' here on Google
> Groups and I'd like to ask for your help in organising a virtual
> 'Conference' here on the forum to look into it.
>
My broad thoughts ... also after having read other people's comments; &
having changed my mind several times over 2 years about what might work
well.
*FORA* to work in? ...
1 - I agree with many of the comments in this htread on the inadequacy, the
cumbersome nature, of GG for sustained documentation.
Plus its weaknesses on phones.
There are many tools that could be used that are superior.
But w*hether they can be sustained* in a seperate issue... See below.
2 - The other tool considerable numbers already here have access to is
GitHub.
In fact Arlen recently started an account that he hopes might be used to
document.
I'm not sure how ammenable GitHub would be but it does have upvoting and
reasonable discussion ("Issues") aspects.
And, important, its already familiar to many.
*However *...
3 - I also want to underline the fact that the ongoing solutions that
appear on GG all the time CAN feed into documentation of a type.
For instance Mohammad's several wiki that are themed are useful resources
that form a kind of "usage guide" to several topic areas.
I enjoyed adding some answers to his questions about regular expressions.
I have quandries about *SUSTAINABILITY*.
1 - Looking back over a couple of years of attempts to improve over GG by
using other Fora, both for documentation and issue solving
they were good initiatives but, I think true, that none proved sustainable
longer term.
2 --My feeling about this (purely intuition) is, at base, we don't have
enough active people to properly sustain a futher seperate forum.
I have queries about what is the suited format *FOR CONTRIBUTION*.
1 - Speaking for myself, I like to *enjoy* writing something that is needed
in the limited areas where I have competence....
2 - ... And where the question/topic *someone else provides, so ...*
3 - ... a distinction between "framework auteur(s)" and "content writers"
may be a useful one?
4 - Elsewhere I mentioned that Q & A format might be worth thinking about
because it is self-contained discrete components.
This differs from a more structured TOC seamed approach which I think also
good, but (guessing) may be harder to bring together.
*OVERALL *...
1 - GG itself does contain vasts numbers of posts that are (fragment)
proto-docs.
2 - There are rich materials already written in many scattered wikis,
especially regarding beginner help.
These are, I think, seriously under-used. So I wonder if they might in some
way be synthesised into one?
Just thoughts
TT
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/9ef346eb-11f4-4b70-98e8-b36817944134%40googlegroups.com.
