You're welcome. I'm not familiar with the round table discussion you mentioned. I just joined this list a quite recently.
Jim Tarvid wrote: > Wow. I wasn't intellectually and emotionally ready for that answer. > > Thanks. Your response will provide fodder for the next round table > discussion. > > Jim > > On 6/5/07, Aaron Kincer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Whoops, should read: >> >> 2) Make information EASY to edit >> >> The joys of spell check and the wrong word spelled correctly. >> >> Aaron Kincer wrote: >> > It's no secret that documentation is the least sexy part of the >> > technical realm. But it seems to me the way to encourage the group >> > process and achieve accuracy (have your cake and eat it too) is to >> > achieve as many of the following as possible: >> > >> > 1) Make information easy to find >> > 2) Make information east to edit >> > 3) Establish a "standard" way to write documentation so someone only >> > has to drop in their steps in a template >> > 4) Establish a rank system >> > 5) Provide attribution >> > >> > >> > I listed those in the order that I think are most important. Finding >> > information easily is the proverbial chicken (see Google for >> > reference) and making it easy to edit is the egg (see Wikipedia). >> > Providing a standard no-brainer way to display information is the next >> > link in the chain (see Myspace). Lastly, providing attribution and a >> > rank system complete the gambut (see Slashdot and Digg). >> > >> > While an endeavor can be successful with having only one of those, the >> > more you have, the better off you are. The standard template design >> > I'm talking about doesn't have to be interface driven like Myspace >> > even though I used that as an illustration. Although having a "wizard" >> > type interface to guide someone would make it easier. Otherwise, >> > people would have to emulate what others do and would require a >> > cleanup crew to go back and massage entries that are a bit cavalier in >> > their organization. If you think documentation isn't sexy, try >> > cleaning up documentation. >> > >> > Of course, implementing all of this is a huge endeavor. The immediate >> > thing that can be done that doesn't require a tremendous effort is a >> > more straight forward and organized wiki that allows people to be >> > viewing and editing task oriented information in two clicks or less >> > from the main wiki screen. I'm thinking: >> > >> > Wiki main page -> Click on Feisty Server (or other version) Wiki >> > >> > I think from there, it is not out of the question to have categories >> > to select with a "View All" link at the top for those that have the >> > bandwidth to pull it all at once and don't want to click through four >> > links just to figure out how to configure dual head for their nVidia >> > card. Maybe it would be more expedient just to skip the categories and >> > have one main Wiki page for a version like UG does. >> > >> > While the information in UG may not be relied upon to be completely >> > accurate, there is a reason it is successful. My opinion is that it is >> > quick and easy to find what you are looking for (accuracy aside). >> > >> > Of course, the decision to make changes such as this does not rest in >> > my hands and these are only my opinions. >> > >> > Aaron Kincer >> > >> > Jim Tarvid wrote: >> >> Merely true! >> >> >> >> I run across competing howtos all the time. The academic world >> >> addresses the issue by "journaling". That doesn't always work either. >> >> I use a sandbox approach and have reinstalled some things a dozen >> >> times or more before I get it exactly right. >> >> >> >> How do we encourage the group process of many eyes makes better >> >> documentation? >> >> >> >> Jim Tarvid >> >> >> >> On 6/5/07, Aaron Kincer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Kristian, >> >>> >> >>> I'm with you that not all the information there is "good" and can >> break >> >>> your system. Heck, I've seen some instructions there that were just >> >>> plain wrong without even having to try them out. However, in my >> >>> opinion, >> >>> the layout of the UG is much better and easier to find information >> >>> quickly than the official wiki site you linked to. Until this is >> >>> addressed, I'm afraid there are some that will not go there first >> >>> (maybe >> >>> even at all). In my opinion, there should be links at the very >> top to a >> >>> task oriented wiki similar to UG for each respective version. The >> links >> >>> at the bottom don't lead to help and are just confusing. >> >>> >> >>> When someone wants to know how to do something very specific, >> trying to >> >>> sort through the pages there is a bit cumbersome in my humble >> opinion. >> >>> When I have a very specific task I want to accomplish, I'd prefer >> >>> not to >> >>> navigate through more than a couple of clicks. >> >>> >> >>> Aaron Kincer >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Kristian Hermansen wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> All, >> >>>> >> >>>> Be wary of Ubuntuguide.org. When users first encountered it, they >> >>>> consider it >> >>>> to be a great resource. Everything you might need to do is in one >> >>>> place with info how to accomplish a goal. However, the problem is >> >>>> that using Ubuntuguide.org may result in your system becoming >> broken >> >>>> or incorrectly configured. The guide is not always correct, and >> you >> >>>> may break your system, especially when it comes to upgrade to >> the next >> >>>> release of Ubuntu. Much of this has to do with adding third party >> >>>> sources to your APT configuration. When you do this, your system >> >>>> could be stable for a few months, until you decide to move to >> Gutsy, >> >>>> and then you wonder why Ubuntu >> >>>> fails to upgrade! >> >>>> >> >>>> Please please please use http://wiki.ubuntu.com or the other >> >>>> help/community resources at the official Ubuntu domain ahead of any >> >>>> other resource. Once you realized that Ubuntuguide is harmful, >> make >> >>>> every effort to support the official wiki and add items there. >> Some >> >>>> people on this list may not realize the harm that can be done if >> you >> >>>> add unofficial items to your APT sources. This is one of the major >> >>>> issues with UG, as they are always suggesting you do this. With >> >>>> Ubuntu, you normally don't need to do this, since most software >> is in >> >>>> the hosted repositories. Again, Ubuntuguide.org should be >> avoided at >> >>>> all times... >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> -- >> >>> ubuntu-server mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
