On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Erez <derez@redhat.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Roy Golan <rgolan@redhat.com> wrote:

I'm getting the feeling I'm not alone in this, authoring and publishing a wiki page isn't as used to be for long time.

I want to suggest a bit lighter workflow:

1.  Everyone can merge their page - (it's a wiki)

  Same as with (public and open) code, no one has the motivation to publish a badly written

  wiki page under their name. True, it can have an impact, but not as with broken code
 

+1.

Moreover, I think we shouldn't block any merging. Instead, wiki maintainers could act afterwards and revert when needed (Wikipedia style). Another issue is that (sadly) unlike mediawiki, we need to wait for wiki publish after a change. So I'd suggest to build and publish the wiki at least once a day. Any way, I think we should make the workflow much more intuitive and pleasant like the previous wiki - i.e. much less restrictive than manipulating a code base.

 

2. Use Page-Status marker

 The author first merges the draft. Its now out there and should be updated as time goes and its
 status is DRAFT. Maintainers will come later and after review would change the status to
 PUBLISH. That could be a header in on the page:
 ---

 page status: DRAFT/PUBLISH
 ---

 Simple I think, and should work.

 +1

The effort of maintaining the wiki today compare to how it used to be before is much more cumbersome and problematic.

I think we can learn a lot from wikipedia workflow,

It is a much more inviting process where anyone can change the content easily.

I'm not saying we should let any anonymous user change the wiki but even if we make it easier in house we can achieve much more informative reliable and updated wiki.

 

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users