Frank,
I endorse everything you say about the lack of clear workflow. I have
signed up to the documentation project but haven't produced a thing
because I'm still confused as to how to go about it.
John
Frank Peters wrote:
Marko Moeller wrote:
Last but not least a few words ... ;-)
All the activities to make documentation.openoffice.org better and
with a higher usability are needed and on a good way. Thanks for that!
But keep in focus that the best website is nothing without actual
content. So that is what is really needed. Take a look at
documentation.:-(
A lot of stuff is outdated (partly only for version 1.x).
The biggest problem was (and is) that a lot of new volunteers starts
enthusiastic an then resign and leave us, cause there are 'lost in
transit'. The new version of
Yes, absolutely. The biggest problem I currently see is the lack
of clear workflow that is quickly understood by new volunteers
and easily followed by the "seniors".
It should place as little overhead as possible, but we need some
of that to be able to manage the content we have. Otherwise we
are lost in content and pages get outdated, content gets orphaned,
and users get confused.
We have to keep the volunteers in mind too if we talk about changes.
So we should not establish new stuff (or use available stuff like the
wiki) before we are sure that the volunteers are willing to use it.
Existing preferences and expertise will play a big role in the selection
process. This discussion is all about asking the volunteers, the project
members, all of YOU!, to speak up and add to the dicussion.
The result should make it easy and fun for you to participate and
contribute.
And we have to find responsible persons (editors) too how are able an
willing to maintain the content. In the past we have to learn (in the
German documentation team) that a community based work is great but that
some kind of 'work flow' is still needed. There must be an
responsible editor in order to finish an publish documentations.
Yes and no. I think we can safely make a staggered approach, where some
doc types are more "trusted" and need more editorial attention than
others. A wiki is dynamic anyway and we should be more flexible there.
Like with FAQs or Howtos.
Anything that gets published statically should go through an editorial
review process, I agree. That mainly addresses user manuals as you
provide them at the OooAuthors group. But as you state, it's hard to
find volunteers for that. This may be partly because the process isn't
well
defined or obscure (or maybe non-existing as with doc.oo.o).
The new solution (what way or product ever) should be a solution for
the future and should (as You said it) fit the needs of both, users
and volunteers. If it takes some days more to find it, that's ok :-)
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
