What is the purpose of a Docs CMS?

[Christopher Curran]

I'll reply to the OP as well. In time.

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:47:32AM -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> [...a lot more than this, snip...]
>   
>> There is nothing about the current scm2web auto-publish system that a
>> few tool changes can't fix, but we're tired and under-staffed for
>> supporting a one-off, NIH content system.  Rather than teach its
>> arcana to more people, I'd rather ditch it and move on.
>>     
>
> Your previous posts are the clearest statements about Docs status in
> recent memory.  We just want people to be able to contribute
> meaningfully in a way that makes sense to them.
>   
This is software, nothing makes sense to most people. Computers are 
complex and strange devices. Simple does not exist and never has.
> * The wiki allows everyone to contribute with zero barrier to entry.
>   Write and publish immediately.  Since anyone can write anything
>   there, caveat emptor.
>   
"zero barrier" - This is a completely false assumption. I had to learn 
wiki markup, it took me weeks. I still go back to the mediawiki help 
section because it is not simple and straight forward. Easy for me is 
NOT the same as easy for others. There is a barrier to entry involved in 
every aspect of a documentation project. No one just wakes up in the 
morning and instantly knows how to write in English either. Stop 
assuming everyone has so much background knowledge.
> * A CMS with an easy editor would basically be the equivalent of "a
>   wiki you can trust just a bit more," because there's an editorial
>   staff dedicated to it by virtue of it being the "official"
>   documentation site.
>   
Again, easy for you is not the same as easy for everyone. You, like me 
most likely, have a strong background in computers and you have been 
using them for several years. Most people's experience with "text 
editors" is Microsoft Word anything else is complex and foreign.

"[dedicated] editorial staff " - Where are these editors coming from? At 
the moment we are struggling to keep the contributers and writers we 
have. Where are these (skilled and) dedicated editors coming from? Have 
they been lurking around waiting for a chance to edit for several years?

> It might be important to note that the CMS is really an experiment,
> something to try that we really haven't done yet.  If it doesn't work,
> the natural fall back might be to abandon all the editorial
> mumbo-jumbo and simply concentrate solely on the wiki from there on
> out.  That's a bridge that can be crossed later too.
>
>   
An experiment which is generating a lot of email unproductively. Can I 
ask this "is this getting any new documentation written?" Editing is a 
colossal waste of time without any actual documents in a completed 
state, ready for editing. This entire discussion is a waste of time.
> And of course, this is just my $0.02 as a Docs contributor.  A lot of
> the above is pure hogwash until (and unless) the next Docs leader
> agrees.
>
>   
My 0.05AUD of rage. I'm angry because the present process is rubbish. 
Getting things published on fp.org is near impossible. Until this 
process has less gates and walls hindering every attempt at pushing good 
documentation into fedora I am keeping my upstream work with the project 
sites(libvirt.org, ovirt.org, etc) who make it easy to publish documents 
and don't waste my time.

My vote on this matter is don't add to the present quagmire but to tear 
down the walls and free up fedora project. Any other upstream website is 
simpler to publish to than fedoraproject at the moment.


Chris (Tsagadai)