[ovirt-devel] [ovirt-users] Lowering the bar for wiki contribution?

[Roy Golan]

On 11 January 2017 at 17:06, Marc Dequènes (Duck) <duck at redhat.com> wrote:

> Quack,
>
> On 01/08/2017 06:39 PM, Barak Korren wrote:
> > On 8 January 2017 at 10:17, Roy Golan <rgolan at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Adding infra which I forgot to add from the beginning
>
> Thanks.
>
> > I don't think this is an infra issue, more of a community/working
> > procedures one.
>
> I do thin it is. We are involved in the tooling, for their maintenance,
> for documenting where things are, for suggesting better solutions,
> ensuring security…
>
> > On the one hand, the developers need a place where they create and
> > discuss design documents and road maps. That please needs to be as
> > friction-free as possible to allow developers to work on the code
> > instead of on the documentation tools.
>
> As for code, I think there is need for review, even more for design
> documents, so I don't see why people are bothered by PRs, which is a
> tool they already know fairly well.
>
> For people with few git knowledge, the GitHub web interface allows to
> edit files.
>
> > On the other hand, the user community needs a good, up to date source
> > of information about oVirt and how to use it.
>
> Yes, this official entry point and it needs to be clean.
>
> > Having said the above, I don't think the site project's wiki is the
> > best place for this. The individual project mirrors on GitHub may be
> > better for this
>
> We could indeed split the technical documentation. If people want to
> experiment with the GH wiki pages, I won't interfere.
>
> I read several people in this thread really miss the old wiki, so I
> think it is time to remember why we did not stay in paradise. I was not
> there at the time, but I know the wiki was not well maintained. People
> are comparing our situation to the MediaWiki site, but the workforce is
> nowhere to be compared. There is already no community manager, and noone
> is in charge of any part really, whereas Mediawiki has people in charge
> of every corner of the wiki. Also they developed tools over years to
> monitor, correct, revert… and we don't have any of this. So without any
> process then it was a total mess. More than one year later there was
> still much cleanup to do, and having contributed to it a little bit, I
> fear a sentimental rush to go back to a solution that was abandoned.
>
> Having a header telling if this is a draft or published is far from
> being sufficient. If noone cares you just pile up content that gets
> obsolete, then useless, then misleading for newcomers. You may prefer
> review a posteriori, but in this case you need to have the proper tool
> to be able to search for things to be reviewed, and a in-content
> pseudo-header is really not an easy way to get a todolist.
>
> As for the current builder, it checks every minute for new content to
> build. The current tool (Middleman) is a bit slow, and the machine is
> not ultra speedy, but even in the worst case it should not take more
> than half an hour to see the published result. So I don't know why
> someone suggested to build "at least once a day". There is also an
> experimentation to improve this part.
>
> So to sum up:
>   - the most needed thing here is not a tool but people in charge to
> review the content (additions, cleanup old things, ask devs to update
> some missing part…), this should also allow for faster publishing
>   - I'm not against changing tool, just do not forget what you loose in
> the process, and the migration pain
>   - I think free editing without workflow in our specific case is not
> gonna work because we do not have the needed workforce for things to
> auto-correct
>
> \_o<
>
>
What do you suggest then? how can infra help with this now? fwiw I don't
care only about 'developers', I do want to process to be better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/infra/attachments/20170116/f4a2994e/attachment.html>