Michael wrote: > The result, much more often than not in my experience, is a document > that nobody takes responsibility for, that has very weak overall > structure, and random level of detail over various parts. No guarantee > that important information is represented appropriately at all. > > I'd like to know who to kick if the document sucks.
for what Boris replied: > You are welcome to visit www.wikipedia.org and convince yourself that is far > away from being myth. Sorry to say, Boris, but your example is mistaken. Wikipedia has millions of editors, and they do it for fun. A normal developer, i.e. who is not forced to write documentation, rarely writes it for fun. She writes code instead. And a software project rarely excess the hundreds in person, so there is no critical mass for the documentation process to be self-sustaining. Should there be a responsible project manager, she puts resources for writing the documentation. If this is the case, it can be wiki, which does have advantages over word documents. - Gergely ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PPIG Discuss List (discuss@ppig.org) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
