Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Response below, > >> -----Original Message----- From: Keith N. McKenna >> [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, >> 2016 18:39 To: doc@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Rebooting the >> Documentation Effort > [ ... ] >> >> It is all well and good to talk about having the more experienced >> project people take a role in assigning tasks et. al. However we >> are in the position we are in because we do not have the >> experienced people. We were told on the dev list to go ahead and >> create a doc mailing list and make the decisions on how the >> documentation should be structured and all that. Now we are being >> told that we should be making those decisions on the dev list. >> Personally I had enough political and turf battles when I worked in >> the corporate world; I certainly do not need them now that I am >> retired and doing this on a volunteer basis. >> >> I have done what I am able to do and I will step back and others >> more qualified battle it out. I hope that you can find a solution >> but I am not sanguine on that score. As is often the case on large >> and small projects alike, Documentation is the bastard child that >> nobody likes admit exists. >> >> Regards Keith > [orcmid] > > Keith, > > Please. I am saying that things like voting aren't part of how ASF > projects work on a routine basis, nor is assigning tasks something > that is done. We can discuss separately how one operates instead > while still having a coordinated effort. > > The idea is to operate by consensus. And people are permitted to > act. On the wiki, as for other tools, nothing is irreversible, and > mistakes are easily corrected. If disagreements arise, let's worry > about that whenever something like that happens. > > I assume a lot of silent consensus is the case with those who operate > here. > > But for major things, that do require deliberation, the only > mechanism is at dev@ where the whole community is involved. I have > no idea what one of those might be for work on the documentation. So > far, I know of no need. > > Voluntary activity is just that and it should continue where it fits > best. None of this suggests the contributors to the wiki need to > change anything. > > I only want to point out to Dave that we don't operate by creating > leadership structures, voting on who those are, etc. I was agreeing, > as I expect you do also, that having some seasoned writers and people > who know the product well would be very helpful in advancing the > documentation. > > No one voted for you, you rolled up your sleeves and you are making > this amazing effort. People respect what you are doing and > participate. You are supporting the wiki roster and authorization of > editors as a volunteer task. I don't recall there being any high > ceremony involved. > > That is how it is meant to work. > > Take a breath, please. > > - Dennis > Dennis;
I have been taking multiple breaths over the last 3 years as we have muddled through multiple variations of the same rat-hole discussions about having more structure or less structure, this license or that license, wiki based or not etc etc. ad infinitum. Meanwhile the documentation grows more and more out of date, and volunteers grow frustrated and go elsewhere. Frankly the more I see the more convinced I become that we will never have solid, sustainable documentation for the product. The skills necessary to do that either are not there in the project community or if they are people have chosen for there own very valid reasons not contribute to the documentation effort. Without a few core people that have an intimate working knowledge of the process of technical writing to guide others getting to the goal of high quality, sustainable documentation is going to be very difficult. Regards Keith
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
