This thread has gone on for a while now, and has become unproductive for many. Is there a point of action at some point or is everyone just waiting around for someone else to do the work?
I'll say it again, hopefully a little more clearly this time. If you are unhappy with the state of the current documentation and feel it could be better explained, please do so. The wiki is available for you. The mailing list is here if you need any clarification in your efforts. Your efforts will be much appreciated. To answer Ian's three questions without boring with another post... >Who does speak for the community? Those that are doing at the time a decision is to be made. Absent that no one speaks for the community, they only speak for themselves. >How does the community decide? By having someone do. And critiquing what has been done. >Is there some kind of vote or what? There can be to coordinate efforts, but most of the time someone just does something. Thanks! Chris --- Ian McNulty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew, > > That would be an Ahaaaaaa from me on that too. > > Except, if OFBiz ever ends up in my delete bucket it's more likely to > be > with an Ahhggggrrrrr!!!$&?£??rrr than an Eh! ;) > > Ian > > > > Andrew Ballantine wrote: > > Chris, > > > > I would be impossible to back with statistics, but in the history > of OFBiz > > and there are many downloads that ended up in the delete bucket > because they > > never reached your AHA moment. > > > > Ian and I are trying to change the Eh! into Ahaaaaaa > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Andrew Ballantine. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Howe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 20 January 2007 09:44 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package? > > > > > > Ian, > > > > While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you > > ultimately suggesting create these lowest common > > denominator (LCD) documents? > > > > As has already been mentioned, once you pass that > > "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand > > why the engineering documentation didn't make sense > > the first time around. 3D vector calculus, as you put > > it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that > > it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even > > though you remember it not being obvious when you > > started. I don't think it's very time/quality > > productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment > > to produce this documentation; at least not without > > the aid of an "uninitiated". > > > > If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there > > are a mess of people, including myself, that would be > > willing to help explain things to you as you make your > > way through the concepts, documenting as you go. But > > the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone > > who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because > > they're not really sure which button they pressed to > > make it all seem second nature. > > > > > > --- Ian McNulty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> David, > >> > >> I don't get the proposition that there are 100 > >> different pilot roles. > >> > >> There are many 1,000s of different destinations. > >> Maybe more than a > >> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter, > >> bomber, spotter, > >> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator. > >> They all fly > >> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single > >> engine props. They all > >> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics, > >> flight-engineering etc. > >> > >> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift, > >> drag, how to > >> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if > >> they start of with 3D > >> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's > >> number is. > >> > >> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are > >> common to all pilots? > >> > >> How to find the door handle and the start button > >> would be top of my > >> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never > >> gonna fly. > >> > >> Ian > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> David E. Jones wrote: > >> > >>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> David, > >>>> > >>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This > >>>> > >> project is better > >> > >>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the > >>>> > >> field.You yourself > >> > >>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of > >>>> > >> documentation. I don't know > >> > >>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well > >>>> > >> written, very clear, > >> > >>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No > >>>> > >> I'm not sucking up - I > >> > >>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem. > >>>> > >>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page > >>>> > >> you link to here a > >> > >>>> couple of days ago myself. > >>>> > >>>> It was whilst working through these videos that > >>>> > >> the light bulb went off. > >> > >>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of > >>>> > >> the wiring harness of > >> > >>>> a jumbo jet. > >>>> > >>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service > >>>> > >> it. > >> > >>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to > >>>> > >> find on his lap. > >> > >>>> Know what I mean? > >>>> > >>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the > >>> > >> framework, not the > >> > >>> applications. The two are very different, change > >>> > >> very differently, > >> > >>> need to be understood by different people in > >>> > >> different ways, etc. My > >> > >>> current estimate is that to produce something > >>> > >> adequate for a "pilot", > >> > >>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot" > >>> > >> roles in OFBiz, would > >> > >>> require many times the effort to produce that the > >>> > >> framework videos > >> > >>> with their diagrams, reference materials, > >>> > >> transcriptions, etc. Right > >> > >>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and > >>> > >> the $40k already > >> > >>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped > >>> > >> into the > >> > >>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate, > >>> > >> especially as it is mostly > >> > >>> reference materials (which is why you won't find > >>> > >> how-to stuff in the > >> > >>> reference guides, they are references after all, > === message truncated ===
