De Angela Jackson wrote: > Hi. Just adding my two cents: > > I never knew that you guys had a tracking document. So, maybe it > doesn't get used because no one knows it's there? If you didn't realize that it was there I apologize. It is referenced in the main index of the user guide with a link to it and most every reply I sent to new volunteers had a link to it and the main index for the User Guide. > > I like Rania's idea of a spreadsheet--something up front where it's > easily found, and everyone can see what's going on.
Just a little history. The reason we went with the status document on the wiki was that it was in the same place and same format as the User Guide that was the main focus. > > I had noticed too that there are a lot of things that one person might > have started but never completed. Why not hold volunteers to task? > Have them do only one thing at a time and not start on another until > the first one is completed and okay'd. This could give the project > more focus and at least give the appearance of progress. One reason is that we do not have the resources for a lot of hand holding. Another is that people rarely communicated that they were actually starting something or had run into a roadblock. Another may be that the concept of a mailing list may be foreign to some people and they are uncomfortable with them as a communication medium. > > Of course, people like me are part of the problem too. A lot of > volunteers really don't know what's going on or what to do, and we > don't necessarily have the technical writing backgrounds. I don't > recall ever seeing a rubric of what exactly should be in each section, > so you kind of leave us bewildered while at the same time lose > uniformity. Each section should have A, B, C, and D regardless of > topic, and with a basic rubric there would be less time holding the > hands of us n00bs. We are ALL responsible one way or another. To be quite honest; MOST volunteers, including myself, do not have the technical writing background. That is why there is and will continue to be a lack of hand holding and mentoring that I would like to see and think that we need. The format that was settled on early on does not lend itself to a rubrical methodology. The idea was to do small, somewhat self contained, pieces that were highly cross referenced for people that prefer on-line perusal and that could also be merged together into book format for those that prefer printed materials. With that concept it is difficult to say that all docs must have a, b, c, and d. This is why the mailing list was envisioned as being the place to communicate and discuss things. Thank you for your excellent and insightful comments. Hopefully all of this will generate more concrete discussion on how we should proceed. Regards Keith > > Just some thoughts. > > > De Angela > > On 4/29/15, Keith N. McKenna <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >> jonathon wrote: >>> On 29/04/15 17:09, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >>> >> Jonathon; >>>> We have a tracking document that is supposed to be used so all members of >>>> the team know where things are and what is needed but it rarely gets >>>> used. >>> >>> I'd suggest the tracking document is rarely used, because nobody is >>> creating documentation. >>> >> Not entirely true. Work has been on certain pieces of the documentation >> but the status document has never been updated, and no mention of the >> work having been done ever came to the list. >>>> do we really want to have the documentation done "in house"; and if we do >>>> is the process we started 2+ years ago still the correct way to go? >>> >>> How much do you know about documentation, when the project was under the >>> auspices of Sun, and later Oracle? >>> >> I know a fair amount about how the documentation was done then. >>> That history has a lot to do with the lack of documentation for Apache >>> OpenOffice today. >> >> The former process may have some bearing on the problem, but more recent >> history also has a great deal to do with it. >> >> Regards >> Keith >>> >>> jonathon >>> >> >> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
