Hi Peter It sounds as if you and Doug agree that the main problem here - by far the most important problem? - (as regards the server guide) is that "the Serverguide is in desperate need of subject matter expert help". Your proposal does nothing directly to address this problem. I don't understand this. If we get the technical reviews then if necessary I can help Doug do the updates to the server guide, Can't Canonical provide the technical reviewers? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something crucial?
Regards, Chris. On 20 February 2017 at 00:38, Peter Matulis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Doug Smythies <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2017.02.15 13:58 Peter Matulis wrote: >> >>> All this would entail: >>> >>> - Initial conversion of all XML files to GFM (GitHub Flavored >>> Markdown) [1]. Done by Canonical. >>> >>> Canonical could create a mockup site of the Server Guide to show what >>> all this would look like, including at the commit, build, and publish >>> levels. >> >> For years now, you have been trying get agreement to change the >> the serverguide to some sort of markdown. I have always wanted to >> see a project plan, timeline, and labour estimate. Now you are saying >> Canonical would do the initial work (I assume they would want >> a project plan, timeline and estimate), so that community concern >> is removed. >> >> Would the mentioned mockup site and workflow include translations >> workflow? Would it include a PDF mockup serverguide? In my opinion >> a PDF serverguide is a must have. > > Yes, it would include translations. > > Yes, it would include a PDF. > >>> It is my hope that moving to Markdown will act as a catalyst to get >>> people to contribute to docs again. It is certainly more user-friendly >>> than the two forms of XML currently in use. >> >> As I have said so many times now, the Serverguide is in >> desperate need of subject matter expert help. > > Yes, I know. :( > >> Myself, I don't think the change would make any difference to >> people's wiliness to contribute. However the feedback >> from Robert Young suggests perhaps otherwise. > > The argument about how the GNOME project uses XML is significant. > There was something said about the help facility included on the > desktop image. I'm not sure how that fits in but apparently moving to > Markdown will interfere. I don't understand the statement that > "Markdown doesn't work well with images" but I don't need to know > since there are enough reasons to keep the Desktop on XML. > > I believe we still have a chance to revive the Server Guide however. > No, I do not have any scientific proof or psychological studies done > that will guarantee that Markdown will make things better but I don't > think we need to worry since contributions have been so low these last > few years. I'll start the SG mockup project. > > As for the Installation Guide, it could benefit from being part of the > family. I'll inquire into the feasibility of converting it. > > Apart from workflow and build procedures there is still the question > of appearances. Even if one, two, or all three projects (D, S, IG) > remains as they are there is value (I believe) in herding them > together (theme and URL space). I'll look into the possibility of > doing this. > > Any objections? > > Peter Matulis > > -- > ubuntu-doc mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
