Patricia Shanahan wrote: > Should we add "Experienced lead technical writers" to the list for the > download web page changes? > > On 7/23/2016 6:23 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>> [BCC dev@ (really, this time)] >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] >>>> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 10:28 >>>> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: Is it time to shut down this effort? >>>> >>>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>>>> [BCC dev@] >>>>> >>>>> Please be specific about what you mean by "this effort." >>>>> >>>>> The current documentation approach is to develop materials on the >>>> MediaWiki. This wiki is typical in that it operates like an >>>> open-source >>>> project with commit then review (although there is a nice "Discuss" >>>> feature). >>>>> >>>>> If you mean the particular approach to reviewing and approving pages >>>> and having a kind of editor-in-chief, please say so. >>>>> >>>>> - Dennis >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 20:36 >>>>>> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Is it time to shut down this effort? >>>>>> >>>>>> My answer to the question posed in the tittle of this e-mail >>>>>> unfortunately is yes. We have been moving by fits and starts for >>>> almost >>>>>> 4 years and have very little to show for it. I would like to hear the >>>>>> opinions of others though. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith >>>>>> >>>> Dennis; >>>> >>>> This mailing list came into existence to coordinate the development of >>>> documentation for Version 4 under the Apache License. There never was >>>> and was never intended to be an editor-in-chief. For a lot of reasons >>>> this particular effort has produced a very limited amount of usable >>>> documentation. >>>> >>>> My personal feeling is that it should be recognized that it is not >>>> doing >>>> what it was intended to and either retired or reconstituted in a >>>> different form. >>>> >>>> I think that my personal position is pretty obvious from my original >>>> message and I wanted to solicit comment from other participants. >>> [orcmid] >>> >>> I am still unclear on what it means to "shut down this effort." >>> >>> Close the doc@ list? >>> >>> What action do you have in mind that would result in a shut down? >>> >>> Also, perhaps a broader request for assistance in documentation is >>> called for. This might go with the adjustments just made to the >>> download page. And there are lists (and the Community Forum) where >>> power users might be encouraged to contribute to documentation on the >>> wiki. >>> >>> The nice thing about the documentation is that there is always room >>> for additions and improvements. Whatever there is at the moment is >>> what there is. Positive effort is not wasted. >>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Keith >> Dennis; >> I specifically did not bring this to the dev list because I wanted to >> illicit responses from the members of the documentation list as to their >> thoughts before I came to the dev list with a concrete proposal. Since >> you insist on bringing it here I will bow to your insistence and express >> my thoughts her. >> >> It is very simple. The documentation list serves no purpose and should >> be closed down. We have tried numerous times to generate more interest >> in gaining volunteers to help with documentation to no avail. Your board >> reports have succinctly stated that the "documentation effort" is >> stalled. Trying to get more people is doomed to failure unless we can >> attract experienced tech writers that are willing to take the time to >> mentor new volunteers and to overhaul the wiki editing policy and the >> style guide to reflect current conditions and practices in the >> discipline. This has not happened and I do not see it happening in the >> future. >> >> It is time that we realize that writing documentation is a unique skill >> set and requires as much coaching and mentoring of new volunteers as >> does writing code. We need up to date policies and procedures on how to >> edit the wiki pages and we desperately need a coherent style guide on >> what documentation looks like. To the best of my knowledge we do not >> have anyone with the requisite skills actively engaged in the project >> that can provide those. >> >> Regards >> Keith >> >> Pat;
It can't hurt, but I don't see it having any more success than other efforts that have been made over the last 4 - 5 years. Keith
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
