On 10/11/2016 03:39 PM, jungle Boogie wrote: > I would call that a wiki, not only inside fossil-scm but in general.
I am inclined to think that a wiki probably isn't sufficient for many projects. What I am casually proposing (just brainstorming, really) is a documentation framework that supports several different types of user (annotation) and developer (modification) involvement, all regulated by policy automation and human/system assessment, modeling and analysis. (Too much razzle-dazzle?) I started to sketch some diagrams earlier but ended up exploring [something like] enterprise architectures for various developer(s)/maintainer(s)/user(s) social organization. (See the work of [Max Weber][1] and [Karl Müller][2]). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_classification_of_authority [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._M%C3%BCller Making the operations (policies, procedures, etc) of the system explicit, and the assessments and measurements quantifiable, all with significant automation support, once bootstrapped, a project could continue with little human involvement. If the documentation system includes pedagogical information and methods sufficient to train users to be maintainers and developers, such a project could endure the vicissitudes of interest. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
