:murb: [maarten brouwers] wrote:
Hi Martin,
Interesting subject...
We are dealing with two different interpretations of a project:
a static project like API, Wordprocessor, Impress, Base, etc.
The IMHO more interesting interpretation of a project is the project
management point of view: a project is a clearly described effort to
achieve something in a certain timeframe.
Is that what you refer to as 'Teams'?
No, that's what listed in the category Projects, such as the
Implementation of new Extension like the MediaWiki, PDF-Import one or
the MacOSX port.
Have a list of active project would point to the area where the
current development effort are. That's why I introduced also the
Category Projects to allow listing also of such Projects.
I'm unsure if we really need project in the sense of a static project:
That is, we don't need projects on the wiki, or in general? I like
projects because they are giving some context to what is happening
there. A place to start. And having defined projects doesn't stop people
from collaborating... look at e.g. art/marketing and the website project.
Yes, but we actually have the problem that in most static project
described on the website only the big dynamic projects are listed. In
the best case there is a link into the wiki, where more projects may be
listed.
My proposal for a new wiki home page
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page_tryout_mh>
may explain why
To me, this page seems like a bit of awkward attempt to create a new
homepage of the general website. I'm not so happy with this proposal
myself.
It is just a demo on how I would like the Entry page of the be
structured. It is not meant as an parallel homepage of the general
website. Of course there are overlaps since the structure of the wiki
and the main website are similar. The current main page of the wiki
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page> looks more than a
collection of might be interesting bookmarks.
Information in general can be categorized into three types:
static documentation: such information get published at a time and is
intended to be one way communication (such as plain documentation,
FAQ, HowTo etc.).
Do you think such information should be published on a wiki? A wiki is
all about dynamic... I see though, that e.g. the FAQ at the wiki is a
semi-static project... If it is really static, I'd say, publish it as HTML.
No, the preparation for the publication should be done in the wiki,
static content I'd like to move to the website where better performance
can be expected.
dynamic documentation: this documents are usually worked on in project
(project management pov) and often have the status draft. they may be
published in the finish of a project and became then the status of
static information (see above). This kind of communication of often
bidirectional but asynchron.
Got that, so maybe a FAQ is more like this? There is a draft, that
communicates, but also is finetuned every now and then?
plus the introduction of a defined set of additional categories like
API, Wordprocessor, Base, Porting , Minutes, Development, Build
System, Tuturials, MacOSX, QA this allow us to implement additional
structures within the wiki. Assigning all the pages to a category of
that scheme would also reduce the amount of orphant pages
(<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Lonelypages>)
currently we have more than 500 of such Lonely pages, that means that
a significant amount of pages is not accessible by random users.
Promoting a limited set of categories is a good idea to add structure.
Right now I would not consider our wiki as an success, I'm impressed
how many good pages have been created in the last few years, but I'm
also disappointed about how difficult it is to get to new useful
information.
It is a culture change... most of these efforts are powered by a mere 1%
of the users. I don't know about the OpenOffice.org wiki, but I have no
reason to suspect this is different here at OOo. I'm trying to push
usage of the wiki more within the website project, and hope that it is
being picked up...
The current audience of the ooo-wiki are developers. Only users which
are interested to participate in project should reach the ooo-wiki
I think the value of a wiki is partly in the allowed chaos. Allowing
people to create quick drafts... without thinking too much about
structure yet. Allowing for structure is ok, but should imho not refrain
a beginning user from starting to use the wiki, because it seems so
regulated.
allowing chaos seems also ok for me, but:
I enjoy that more and more teams are using the wiki for their
development work and there is many useful information for new developers
to step in. Without providing a structure and then also using that
structure these page will stay as is: A private worksheet. Even worse:
If potential new developers will get to wiki and search for information,
he might have the chance to find some via the wiki search function but
he don't know what he will get: Is that what he is reading a brain dump
from whatever person some time ago, is that information still valid, is
it complete, is it correct ? He will not have any chance to find this
out without a structure.
please see also in
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Information_Sharing
the problem statement:
http://ux.openoffice.org/reports/2007/website/InfoSharing.odp
I was less hesitated in starting a website project page,
simply because the wiki was in a relatively shabby state :) ... it makes
things accessible... low entry. That is not something one should neglect.
That's why I also don't hesitate to do that "awkward" draft of a new
homepage for the wiki, you seem to get the idea ;-)
Martin
g.,
Maarten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
