Subject:
Re: Volonteer lacks or(inc) TLDP on the turn ?
From:
Robert Francis ####@####.####
Date:
3 Mar 2005 20:51:05 -0000
Message-Id: <42277887.6000600@ukfsn.org>
A good reply I thought, although a bit involved, and breaking the very
rules stated in the body of the email. If you really want to produce
something which would allow newbies to find their own level, and pick up
knowledge and skills in their town time, you do not produce a massive
documentation (bureaucratic) product, which is clearly (going by the
present discussion) difficult to produce. You produce something which is
closer to the original Unix model. You let those who have the initiative
a free hand to explain matters in their own way, and leave it to the
free market to decide whether they have produced something worth while.
I subscribed to this discussion group (and have failed to get out) in
order to find out whether what you are doing would be a good model in
other areas. I am afraid it is not. I get the impression that somebody
in Microsoft suggested the project as another means of preventing Linux
from replacing MS Windows.
Would not a wikipedia be a much better way of going about this? You
could start what 'whatis Linux' (let Linus write that), and then take
off into all the other areas. It would grow naturally. Whole pages could
be devoted to esoteric areas, without upsetting the whole project. It
would be fun, non bureaucratic, very U, and even let newbies write a
better 'whatis' than some egg-headed geek.
That is just one idea. I am sure there are many others.
Robert Francis.
Ps. Please tell me how I get out of this group! Even that is not stated
clearly - it is assumed that the groupie knows all.
PPs. Or just unsubscribe me somebody. Enough is enough!
Mathieu Deschamps wrote:
> a democratic user feedback prevents this sinister cheats, it's automated,
> one of the most viable. "A sort of statistic can be usefull", said you
> I fell pretty much more it's unavoidable, a quality trend.
>
> I have not thought about a technical solution in deep but other site do use
> it and this bulble-sort roughly spots the best docs, the best effort
> also (activity purcentile reviewer/author/converters).
>
> Ok, I go deeply in the ideas I have now (ok this is very raw):
> It has to be more clear, who reviews, who authors (write the original
> doc), who converts, and so on. Who do what? What is in currently
> been processed ? The basis of a organisation. People involved can
> be sorted by age of LDP. (I said sorted, and not straightforwardly rated)
> Oldier can put out of the user ranking list their best references in
> their humble opinion and experience. This would balance the users choice.
>
> Like in books and libraries I mean, there are references : huges, bold, complete
> but long time coming, unnewbiefriendy, exhausting and what you want,
> And there is opposite : quick to the point, light, not always enough and what you
> want.
>
> That's true that's like a major change : TLDP on the turn rather than in the hole .
> KW : Accessibility, Personnalization, Quality
> -----
> Prerequesties:
> Know the intended audience
> Differenciate the people in the audience (readers/reviewers/authors/certifiers/ ..)
> Realize where are the strokes, lacks to change and whre are the strenghs, traditions to preserve.
> -----
> Everyone -> Explain the job done in LTP (review/conversion/authoring/certificating/>>etc..)
> Everyone-> Display clearly the way to follow resulting of user involvment will (diffrenciated audience)
> Reader -> Define search criteria to user need (diffrenciated audience)
> Reader -> Keep bold reference at hand
> Reader -> Display user best choice ranking
> Everyone -> Let the user choose this level of involvement.
> ---
>
>
> I've just came to (from what I've said I'am a new born ) and I'am not pretending
> to reform years old site policies, but I pretend that if LDP is self-questionning it's the best.
>
> This is raw ideas, but this implemented has and
> can work.
>
> mathdesc.
>
>
> "You can't invented the light-bulb just in upgrading the candle"
> does somebody know from whom it is ?
>
> Hans Bol ####@####.#### wrote:
>
> I agree that a sort of statistics system can be useful.
> But then you will have to be sure that this kind of system has to be
> maintained by one person. If you let the user do it himself then a user
> can influence the rate to put his doc on top of the list.
> If you let the system calculate this kind of rating then the user can do
> the same by adding one space or word to his doc and ..... voila! again
> back on top of the list.
>
> So it is a very good suggestion, but it has to be done by again another
> volunteer!
>
>
>
>
>
> Hans
>
> ####@####.#### wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>For instance, I want to share a guide (It's been written) so I send
>>>a RFC to my draft onto this lists, very well. But first it needs to
>>>be standartized and I'am routed to Authoring Guide/HOW-TO. Pages
>>>later, I understand it was made for people who are in writing their
>>>TLDP doc. I'd say that being a volonteer gets harder every day :)
>>>Briefly speaking there's a lack of readliness. For me, it's just, how
>>>come I publish under TLDP stds my written doc ? How to convert ? It
>>>shoud not be 50 pages long ? Anyways, anycases 'am thrown in the main
>>>uniq stream.
>>
>>
>>Mathieu, are you saying that you have a fully written HOWTO which you
>>now discover needs to be converted to DocBook, or have the DocBook
>>standardised, and that you would rather have known about this a lot
>>earlier? I think TLDP can assist with markup.
>
>
>>Yes I'am now discovering :)
>
>
>
>>Also, I know David has frequently suggested that TLDP needs to make
>>life easier for volunteers.
>
>
> David's all right he must be sanctified ! :)
>
>
>
>>>As well there are different categories of doc, there's different
>>>type of doc. Some guide frequently reviewed and updated are
>>>references papers. Some other are complement, for example on a
>>>particular architecture they could be less reviewed and updated. This
>>>couldn't appear of the same basis. The most used could be shortcut to
>>>have a greater visibility.
>>
>>
>>That's an interesting suggestion. Maybe TLDP could use statistics on
>>which documents are accessed and how frequently to somehow prioritise
>>their maintenance?
>>
>>Maybe some kind of similarly democratic system (user feedback?) could
>>also be used to help rate the quality of documents.
>>
>>
>>Mick
>>
>>______________________
>>http://lists.tldp.org/
>>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER:
> This e-mail and any attachment(s) sent with it are intended exclusively for
> the addressee(s), and may not be used by, opened by, passed on to, or made
> available for use to, any person other than the addressee(s). Stork rules
> out any and all liabilities resulting from any electronic transmission.
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
> Créez votre Yahoo! Mail
