[wiki curation] Feature template

[R P Herrold]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Mike Kolesnik wrote:

> > I would suggest no - perhaps a "deprecated" field would be useful, but
> > I'm unaware of any feature which was added then later removed from the
> > project.

I missed the fact that you were limiting your discussion to 
the extension for 'Features' rather than the wiki generally, 
and so my scope and yours did not match, as I was thinking 
generally across the wiki, and not limited to specific Feature 
pages.  I had not intended to hijack a thread ;(
 
> > > As I read setup articles in the wiki, there seems to be such a
> > > life-cycle
> > 
> > Set-up articles are slightly different - we will continually try to
> > improve and streamline the installation experience. But they wouldn't
> > come under "Feature pages" for me.

concur

> > > 2. Also, exposing:
> > > 	Last edited on:
> > > 	Last editor:

> > > would be a goodness -- I regularly receive direct email 
> > > from folks not willing for wnatever reason to wade into 
> > > a high volume mailing list, but seeking help, and having 
> > > the ability to ** find ** someone, anyone authoring in a 
> > > subject matter area is part of the FOSS ethic
> > 
> > Yes, I think an "Updated on:" field would be good. In combination with
> 
> Wouldn't this be the same as the "last updated" field that we already have in the feature pages?
> 
> > an "Owner" field, that should take care of your need.

As I read it, and as I look, Owner is really more tied to 
Features -- I was discussing a simple way from for a end user 
coming to the wiki (usually without edit rights) to identify 
someone (the last person doing edits) who may have subject 
matter expertise in general

> > > 3. And having a formal machanism to formally catch
> > > 	Potentially stale:
> > > 
> > > content, so that pages might be marked in one pass and 'on the
> > > fly', then later searched, and finally curated back to not
> > > 'Potentially stale'
> > > 
> > > were markings I used when maintaining CentOS wiki presence,
> > > to combat entropy
> > 
> > Again, it seems like you're thinking of this as something which might be
> > on all pages - its specifically for "feature pages" - they are
> > functional specs and design documents for features to be added to oVirt.
> > I don't think "potentially stale" applies (perhaps I'm wrong?).

Yes -- my comments were out of scope for Feature subset of 
pages

Thanks for the feedback

-- Russ herrold