Subject:
Re: [discuss] Re: small demo page
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
13 Sep 2005 19:42:54 -0000
Message-Id: <43272B4F.50805@mail.nyx.net>
Randy Kramer wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 10:16 am, jdd wrote:
>
>>Stein Gjoen wrote:
>>
>>>What does it take to revitalise TLDP?
>>>
>>if I don't err, the original thread was about using a wiki
>>to build a new discussion space.
There is no conflict in view here, I see the wiki debate as
a possible means of revitalisation.
>>I build this on
>>
>>http://dodin.org/~tldp/mw/index.php/Main_Page
>>
>>and had exactly zero (0) hits from the tldp (the site was
>>advetised only here)
>>
>
> jdd:
>
> I would have sworn that I was there (more than once) as was Stein--are you
> sure your counter works, or don't we count?
I am puzzled. Unless I have been hallucinating I spent hours
in improving the markup alone. The text used by the Wiki
was French, now it is English. Was there a reinstallation?
>>so revitalise is not on the way :-((
>
> Well, maybe not, but I don't think that's the only datapoint that should be
> considered.
>
> all:
>
> I don't know how or if tldp should be revitalised--what was it at its most
> vital?
About 5 years ago I spent 15 minutes in the morning, noon and afternoon
handling TLDP emails alone plus evenings doing other TLDP works. Currently
there is nowhere that volume of email.
And yes, I feel TLDP needs revitalisation
- the new categories have to be implemented (I am working on that)
- more cooperations with other groups needed
- more cooperations with distributions (Redhat no longer
include TLDP material), need to check out more here
I feel we have to look at our audience and serve them better
(end users, distribution makes and authors). I doubts we can
ever say we are finished, continuous improvements is the norm
these days.
> My impression/recollection is that it has been:
>
> * (its primary purpose, iiuc) a place for HOWTOs and similar documents to
> be hosted for downloading by users looking for information
David Lawyer suggested an improved Manifesto with a clear
mission statement. Has it been put up at the website yet?
I would have mailed him directly, had his ISP not banned
mine.
> Note that the authors of those documents (again, afaik) have not necessarily
> (or even usually??) been "members" of the tldp--anyone could write a
> documents and "submit" it to the tldp for hosting
>
> AFAIK, tldp still accomplishes the above. (Has there been a falloff in
> quantity of documents downloaded recently? Is it because the documents are
> shipped with many Linux distributions?0
We improved quality by removing a few documents of questionable
value. These leave holes that I would like to see filled with new
HOWTOs.
Moreover I am not certain all distributions still carry TLDP
HOWTOS. We know Redhat does not. Debian does. Suse seems like
it might do. What about the others?
> In other words, what signs do you (anyone) see that tldp is becoming less
> vital?
Less email traffic. No license resolution in sight. Lots of development
but not that many new HOWTOs. Many HOWTOs proposed but not followed
through (such as the telnet HOWTO). Massive lack of resources for
editing. People retiring (TLDP has worn out quite a few TLDP leaders).
Several document handling projects started and terminated. And more.
> * At various times, efforts have been put forth to improve the process of
> writing, editing, publishing, or distributing those documents. I'm not sure
> how alive all of those are at the moment--is something there signalling a
> loss of vitality?
Process has been closely defined, an important improvement that can
bring us closer to modern quality asurance.
> Aside: I think I've said something like this before: my biggest interest in
> documentation occurred when I knew the least about Linux--I needed
> documentation to figure out what was going on. At that time, if I was
> reading documentation and had a question, saw a typo, ... and had an easy
> means to address the issue immediately (like having the document published on
> a wiki, or a simple means (for a newbie) to generate a diff or similar< I
> would have been happy to address the issue immediately (fix a typo or grammo,
> post a question where I was confused (and later, if I found the answer, post
> the answer or proposed clarification to the language). Now that I've learned
> some things, I have no great interest in going back to read documents that I
> read once purely for the purpose of looking for typos, confusing language,
> open questions/missing information.
>
> IMHO, if you want to revitalize some part of TLDP, take advantage (in the
> nicest way) of newbies--make it easy for them to correct typos, fix confusing
> language, etc. etc. If there is a problem that some authors don't want to
> give up control of their documents, I'd even go so far as to suggest
> rewriting them via a "wiki like process" (as I've suggested for documents
> with authors who can no longer be located).
A broad recruitment drive would be nice. We have had a few postings on
Slashdot but none seem to have resulted in new resources. I am not
giving up. How do you propose to bring in new resources?
> But, the whole question of revitalising TLDP depends on what its goals are.
> What are the goals of TLDP?
I would like to see TLDP as the natural starting point for finding
answers to a great number of topics broadly related to free/open
software. David Lawyer had a good summary in his proposed update
to the manifesto.
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
