On 14/03/13 19:38, adrelanos wrote: > Hi! > > I made the assumption, that you'd like to have more people improving > documentation and thought may like to get feedback if someone feels > that something prevents people from contributing, like I do.
Yes, that would be great to have more people writing documentation. > Taking this as an example todo item: > https://tails.boum.org/todo/document_timezone/ > > Looks fairly trivial to me. I don't know why this even requires a todo > item. You could just edit it in place. Sure. I guess it's not done yet because the people who have been writing documentation are spending most of their volunteer Tails time busy with other things. That's a shame indeed. > It seems to me, you want, that someone creates a git branch with the > proposed changes, you'll discuss, revision, discuss etc. and finally > bring it online. That seems overkill to me and people who could be > sufficiently motivated to write such kind of documentation, I guess > many users, are not willing to learn git and to go through a > bureaucratic process. Right, that's what is being described in /contribute/how/documentation so far. I'm sure that can be improved. > My suggestion is, such changes can be made in place. The other editors > subscribe to changes and if they dislike something, they improve it > right in place. Naturally, most times a good version develops. This > works well for different wiki. Doocracy. I disagree with you on this. Having a freely editable documentation would imply more work on the shoulders of the people who are already working with scarce human resources. Namely: 1. The core team. The way we document things has serious security implications. People should be able to trust the Tails website as much as they trust Tails itself. So having a freely editable documentation would require us to do permanent checks on all the commits in order to catch possible security issues. A much more reliable way to do so it to be open to contributions, review them and publish them once they are mature. Call it bureaucracy if you want, I call it collective process and quality assurance. 2. Translators. Tails pretends to be multilingual. Of course, if people do a good job, you can see incremental edits as incremental improvements over a document; when working with a single language! But when you have translations involved, an incremental edit in the original language automatically degrades all the translation until they are updated manually. So you're loosing work, and downgrading the documentation every time. No good for translators, no good for users. But here is a proposal that might please you. The /todo section is freely editable on the website. So we can propose contributors to elaborate their proposals directly in the ticket corresponding to the issue. For example, if you want to work on /todo/document_timezone, please do it right there. Then that could be collectively and incrementally reviewed and improved. Once the documentation is mature enough it could be published in the /doc section and sent for translation. I'd also prefer if people doing that subscribed to tails-dev and coordinate the debates in there. Would that proposal answer your concern? If so, I'm ready to add it to /contribute/how/documentation. > Well, and before an edit war starts, in rare cases where you want to > undo something, you can still start a discussion and come to a decision. I like it better when one don't have to undo and loose work...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev