Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: future of the wiki

[Douglas Philips]

On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 11:25 US/Eastern, Talli Somekh wrote:

> OK, no problemo. I hope to have the Wiki up (or hope to have my 
> sysadmin have the Wiki up) in the next few days. However, that might 
> have to wait until after the Labor day weekend.

Cool!

> All this being said, I still don't think the most important issues 
> have been worked out. I don't think whether we have an arch-ive, a 
> wiki or an animated GIF for our website matters much without a 
> strategy for what we are trying to accomplish in terms of content 
> presentation, collaboration and attraction.
>
> If a wiki provides the foundation for building the appropriate 
> infrastructure then that's great because it's already been implemented 
> and the community is generally comfortable with it. If not, then we 
> should consider alternatives.

Actually, the beauty of a wiki is that it lets those who contribute 
shape the content and structure. Picking some big grand architecture 
for it up front seems counterproductive. But that doesn't mean some 
folks won't be able to maintain parts of it in very structured ways 
(assuming, as wikis do, and as I've found them on the web to be, that 
everyone plays nice).

> 2) What are the critical path items that people need to see in order 
> to begin to grok arch? Docs? Projects that use arch? TODO items? 
> Mailing list archives?

All of those are good. With a well functioning wiki, users/newbies can 
ask and the structure can accomodate, even for things you hadn't 
already thought of in advance.

> 	prioritize and organize the content that is currently available. For 
> instance, the tutorial is an amazing resource, but it's rather 
> 	difficult to find. In fact, the tutorial for the package-framework is 
> impossible to find AFAICT. That's a shame because it's a 	wonderful 
> example of how arch can be leveraged.

package framework? Tutorial?

Yes, wikis need work. But that work can be distributed. The transport 
behind it, be it RCS, arch, or whatever, is completely a different 
thing. Wikis work because they are common shared _live_ resource. 
Submitting changes via email or arch patches or changesets completely 
misses the vital point of wikis.

> 3) Website editorial governance
>
>         We've begun discussing this already, whcih is great.
>
> There are more questions that I will send soon enough.

For some really key stuff, maybe having write-access control, but in 
general, if I have to jump through any hoops to make it better, I 
won't. Think of it like a big heavy gear. Its hard to turn. Wikis give 
you lots of teeny tiny nubs so that you can turn it just a little bit 
at time, and it'll rachet better and better. Using TWiki (or anything 
with a version control (hidden under the covers)) gives you the safety 
to change anything and peace of mind that you can't lose everything in 
an editing disaster or malicious update.

Just my buck two-fitty,
        <D\'gou