hi Jonathan, wiki admins, thanks for the follow up.
while I'm in thanks giving mode, I'd also like to thank the wiki admins -- without you we wouldn't even have a wiki. my initial intent was to write a retrospective and a proposal, and then I saw https://salsa.debian.org/debian/grow-your-ideas/-/issues/2 which made me rehink a lot of things. let's start with decision making. I'd like to ask the debian wiki admin team members on whether you have a preference between: 1. sticking with moin and upgrading to 2 whenever that is declared production ready? (assuming that that happens on time) 2. being open to migrating to a different engine 3. having a strong preference to migrating to a different engine and in the latter two cases, whether you have a preference about a particular engine. of course, a significant number volunteers could just start something, but it'd be sad if those volunteers didn't at the very least consult with the very same people who already have experience with doing the job. second, having looked at the freebsd and archlinux wikis, I'm starting to think that: - high quality content is about boring process (doing small, well scoped changes, much like one would do with code; having people actively review them; and roll back changes when they don't follow certain clearly-communicated guidelines) - the choice of engine has little to do with the quality of the content (as much as I struggle to bring myself to use a web-based editor, I would not be surprised if I'm in the minority in wanting a git interface) On Sun Jan 19, 2025 at 11:54 AM CET, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Folks, > > Recently a discussion on -devel branched into the topic of the Debian > Wiki (the particular sub-topic was the wish from some to have a > git-backed wiki). Some felt that this discussion should be moved off > -devel, and others pointed out that the Wiki maintainers themselves > should be made aware, and that debian-www@ was the correct place for > that. > > Discussions/desires to enhance or evolve the Wiki are nothing new, and > previous discussions exist in many other places¹. Debian being Debian, > that will always be the case. And rather than try to stamp out > discussion in the "wrong" place, it seems to me a better approach might > be to try and summarize the varied discussions, desires, requirements > and proposals: and the Wiki itself is a good place for that, IMHO. > > To that end, I've created DebianWiki/NextGen, and made an initial > attempt to summarize the current live threads I'm aware of: > <https://wiki.debian.org/DebianWiki/NextGen>. I'll try to update it, and > contributions are welcome. thanks for starting this, though I find it somewhat ironic that you chose the very platform that motivates this whole discussion :) I've (grudginly) opened a browser and added some remarks on contributor guidelines > And so on to my 2p's worth: A lot of the discussion I've seen focussed > on (a) narrow list of problems (moin 1.9.x, Python 2), (b) advocates > solutions (e.g. mediawiki) and (c) makes assumptions (we must migrate > all the content in perfect fidelity if we move wiki engine) which might > not hold. I feel we should spend some time thinking hard about what we > want from the Debian Wiki, i.e., a good old-fashioned requirements > analysis, before we look at (b) or (c). I completely agree on (b) being premature, but I think of (c) as a requirement (or non-requirement if we agree that fidelity is optional) my 2c on (c): many parts of wiki.d.o are really outdated and important parts of the wiki are in dire need of consolidation and cleanup (e.g. see /DebianWiki/NextGen discussion of contributors' guidance in the Debian vs other wikis) that aiming for high fidelity to me seems entirely secondary (if desirable at all) > I'm sending this (primarily) to debian-www@ as that's the right place > for Wiki discussions, by convention, and to be sure the Wiki maintainers > see it. [..] > > I'm particularly keen that the Wiki maintainers are in the loop (hence > this mail), but also the current set of active wiki contributors. +1 thanks, serafi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
