FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-15-2012, 04:58 PM
María Leandro
 
Default Tying threads together.

Hello

El 15 de febrero de 2012 12:30, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@redhat.com> escribió:





Max mentioned a phrase in a previous mail this week that I think is incredibly applicable here: Institutional memory. *Many of us have been around a while; most of the previous respondents to these emails, far longer than I have. *Those folks participating and contributing to the aforementioned threads, by and large, know that they can Go Forth and Do without seeking board blessings; inherently know what resources are available; more or less have a gut feeling on when they should or shouldn't apply for funding for an international FUDCon; know who to ask for resources; etc.






None of this is readily apparent to anyone who shows up on the proverbial doorstep of the Fedora Community, wanting to actually do something. Most people who do show up, of course, just want to contribute in some way, but eventually, many of those folks move beyond smaller contributions, and move into Bigger Things Territory.




Just as Mo said with Mailing lists, also our wiki needs a bit of arrangement. If a new contributor needs something that is not point out on frontpage will get lost into a complete mess that is ok for regular contributors, but not for new users. How do we expect that users make that huge step into contribute if they need to go to an specific contributor for guideliness every time?



I really hope that the video project can provide not only a *non-boring-text* resource between those who only are interested in use and those who want to turn into contributors. We are *technology* so, why the hell aren't we using it to make things better?







While I largely agree with David's previously stated point of view that the majority of power to direct or effect change in Fedora lies with the people doing the work, I think that it is certainly in the Board's interest to ensure that community members are enabled to actually get the work done.






Board, FAmSCo and every leader crew you can imagine MUST make sure that people DO things. However, general feeling is that there is no way I can do it because *is a mess to read/get a Howto on our wiki* and *what if I don't speak english?* (a pretty common issue outside US). Why do contributors think that they need to be ambassadors to held an event? why if a design/translate/whatever cotributor wants to join cannot go directly and solve a task without need to step on IRC to ask for help?


I think that is the right time and place to reconsider the way make fedora grow, our rules and tasks, and the way we provide general information to potential contributors. Will this mean more infra? not necesary... it will mean more communication between general and local leaders and will require a huge effort to check and compare what we have done right and wrong in the past, but mostly will require that people *open their ears* and take a time to listen what Fedora people has to say... instead just call for a meeting to say Yes-No.


If leaders feel that there is too much information comming, then I guess we need more hierarchy between roles. Just remember that at the end, we are here to help and make things happen, to listen and help people to reach their goals or acomplish their ideas.

*



--
tatica
Maria Gracia Leandro
http://www.tatica.org

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:tatica
LinuxUser= 440285* GPG Public Key: E1CDCC56

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 05:21 PM
inode0
 
Default Tying threads together.

2012/2/15 Máirín Duffy <duffy@fedoraproject.org>:
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 10:00 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>> Anyone know if we're allowed to have a Project Usability FAD? (That
>> was a joke. Just to be clear.)
>>
>> Thoughts welcomed. (Note: THIS EMAIL IS NOT A DIRECTIVE, just long-winded.)
>
> AMEN.

Two short things, one essay and one talk, that I found really
interesting to digest while thinking about the Fedora Project and its
governance are here.

"I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read"
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html

While I think there are quite a few things one can take away from
these that are directly relevant to Fedora, I'll let people digest
them on their own before sharing much of what I took away.

One large thing though is the idea in both that stuff happens, and
really great stuff, without central planning of some sort. A base of
freedom suitable to the context is enough. Points for a Board that
doesn't try to direct all the traffic. But there is a related point I
take away that I think will resonate here with Máirín and others. That
is that we can help make great stuff happen, not by figuring it all
out and telling people what to do but by creating the culture or a
framework that fosters and promotes the sorts of freedom and ease of
doing that enables others to achieve what *they* want to achieve.

Máirín has suggested work by the Board in this area a number of times
and I agree that the Board should be engaged in this way. What sort of
things allow people to achieve their goals within the Fedora Project?
How can we improve those things?

I think you are both in touch here with an important thing for
governance to be paying attention to.

Enjoy,
John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 05:34 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Tying threads together.

Máirín Duffy (duffy@fedoraproject.org) said:
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 10:00 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> > The best way to NOT be a place of permission is to clearly state that
> > contributors are enabled, how they are enabled, and what resources they
> > have at their disposal, and make this place of information incredibly
> > easy to understand, well-known, and obvious to newcomers. And ensure
> > that the processes that back up the enablement are just as clear, or at
> > least, not broken, and have clear owners. And ultimately, make sure that
> > we are not a place simply of Institutional Memory and the Those Who Know
> > How, Can.
> >
> > I think we, the Board, and the wider community, need to tune in the dial
> > a little bit and focus on usability of our community. It's not just
> > "joining the project" -- it's about thriving once you are in.
> >
> > Anyone know if we're allowed to have a Project Usability FAD? (That
> > was a joke. Just to be clear.)
> >
> > Thoughts welcomed. (Note: THIS EMAIL IS NOT A DIRECTIVE, just long-winded.)
>
> AMEN.

<initiatives snipped>

These are all good initiatives. And yet, my only honest response right now
is "sure, that sounds great, and I'd love to see it happen. But I don't have
any time or resources to contribute to this."

And I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this boat. I suspect that overall,
as a project, it's the default attitude. - We don't want to intentionally
discourage people, but we just can't help right now. So we unintentionally
discourage everyone, because even though we tell them they're empowered, no
one really wants to go it alone.

Robyn touched on this - how to state what resources contributors have at
their disposal. But we need to also *have those resources*. How do we create
resources for contributors to have at their disposal?

We tried this in FESCo with the Fedora Engineering Services effort - we'd
have a place where people could file smaller development/packaging
initiatives, and we'd try and match them to people who wanted to help out
with that level of tasks. It has (for the most part) failed.

Now, if we were a real government, we'd institute taxes, and each
contributor would contribute 10% of their time and then we'd have a pool of
resources available for community initiatives. But somehow, I don't think
that would fly.

Bill
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 05:45 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Tying threads together.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 13:34:49 -0500,
Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Now, if we were a real government, we'd institute taxes, and each
> contributor would contribute 10% of their time and then we'd have a pool of
> resources available for community initiatives. But somehow, I don't think
> that would fly.

Fedora Engineering Services is an attempt to do something along those lines.
It hasn't worked out all that well, but some stuff has gotten done that way.
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 05:47 PM
Máirín Duffy
 
Default Tying threads together.

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 13:34 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> <initiatives snipped>
>
> These are all good initiatives. And yet, my only honest response right now
> is "sure, that sounds great, and I'd love to see it happen. But I don't have
> any time or resources to contribute to this."
>
> And I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this boat. I suspect that overall,
> as a project, it's the default attitude. - We don't want to intentionally
> discourage people, but we just can't help right now. So we unintentionally
> discourage everyone, because even though we tell them they're empowered, no
> one really wants to go it alone.

Absolutely, because everyone is empowered meander off wherever their
heart or the randomness of the moment leads them. The bazaar is lovely,
it really is, but it fractures us and I think our slavishness to keeping
that bazaar as wide open as possible has in part held us back, big time.
It has made us wide and shallow - this is what happens when you have NO
FOCUS AT ALL. We don't have to be narrow and deep, but *surely* there
must be some sane middle ground where we've got a good variety of
projects (maybe not as wide as now) aligned to some loosely-defined
goals with more significant membership to make things happen.

If the board stated the current vision for the project is to make it
exceedingly easy to contribute to free software and in aiming towards
that goal, picked up one or two of those initiatives, advocated for them
widely within the community, helped recruit folks to make it happen... I
believe those initiatives could happen, in the same manner the www.fpo
complete revamp happened with the board's advocacy starting back in
2009.

Maybe you personally don't have the time or resources to contribute to
any of the ideas. How many people would agree at first stab, having
tried and failed in the past without support at making something happen?
I think most, myself included. It's when you do the advocacy work and
build up support and make a case and story for the initiative, make it
seem like a real possibility, is when people sign up. And when you do
that from a position of power, as board members are in, it makes a big
difference.

~m

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2012, 06:32 PM
Máirín Duffy
 
Default Tying threads together.

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:21 -0600, inode0 wrote:
> "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read"
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

> Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex
> http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html

John, I'm not sure in which way you meant for these to be interpreted,
but there is a lot of good brain food here; thank you for suggesting it.
I saw two possible ways to interpret these:

Interpretation #1)

"In order to accomplish something, you can't start from scratch every
time. Whether it's a functional communication system or the presence of
vendors who can sell you er, graphite, you can't provide everything you
need to make the thing you're aiming for from scratch. There's
infrastructure and materials and community needed that you can't all do
yourself."

To this reading, I say, yes! I believe we put far too much burden on
folks trying to get things done, where they must start from ground zero
and build a ton of things on their own rather than focus on the thing it
is they really want to work on, because those support structures /
infrastructure are just not working at the level we need them to if they
exist at all. Sadly I think that because no one person can do everything
on their own, and there's this expectation that they should somehow
figure out how to make it happen, to have the vision, leadership,
organization, coding & design & writing skills when they can't possibly
have all of that.

Note how the open source community as a whole has this emphasis on 'rock
stars.' Well, yes, the people who get things done are 'rock stars'
because you have to be to get anything done! This is not a *good*
thing!!

We have to do a better job at enabling the collective mind that Ridley
refers to, or we'll be limited by the ability / skills of our own
personal islands.

Interpretation #2)

"We should let people work on whatever they want to work on, and somehow
magically something wonderful like a pencil will come out of it."

(I *really* don't like this one so I'll hold the commentary on it.)

> One large thing though is the idea in both that stuff happens, and
> really great stuff, without central planning of some sort. A base of
> freedom suitable to the context is enough. Points for a Board that
> doesn't try to direct all the traffic. But there is a related point I
> take away that I think will resonate here with Máirín and others. That
> is that we can help make great stuff happen, not by figuring it all
> out and telling people what to do but by creating the culture or a
> framework that fosters and promotes the sorts of freedom and ease of
> doing that enables others to achieve what *they* want to achieve.

But what do you do when person A wants to achieve something that is
diametrically opposed to what person B wants to achieve?

I mean, the project does need an identity with which to attract
like-minded folks so we can be productive. An extreme example to
illustrate this: Canucks fans showing up to the Boston Bruins victory
parade. That's not great stuff happening; that's likely a riot. (Sorry
Vancouver fans.)

People do have 'tribes.' That's human nature, I think. If we have no
identity or position or defining vision driving the project, then how is
a potential contributor to know this is a place that resonates with
them? If anything goes, if you can do whatever you want as long as you
can get the boots on the ground, then we really don't have functional
vision at all, only a dream on paper.

If we keep the entire thing completely undefined and feed to anyone who
expresses a desire to help the notion that they can do anything that
they want if they make it happen - we will get lots of factions and
disagreements, wasting a lot of time and effort on conflict rather than
churning out awesome things that make a real positive difference in the
world.

If I could only, only get back those hours and days of my life wasted in
GNOME vs KDE bickering, or VIM vs EMACS bickering, or GNU/Linux vs
Linux, or Free Software vs Open Source, or <insert FLOSS holy war
here>... but I will never get them back. What awesome things could I
have worked on with that time instead? Multiply that across our
contributor base, and it's downright depressing.

> Máirín has suggested work by the Board in this area a number of times
> and I agree that the Board should be engaged in this way. What sort of
> things allow people to achieve their goals within the Fedora Project?
> How can we improve those things?

Fixing communication. I have a million and three ideas on how this could
be realized. They shouldn't be new to anybody reading this thread.

The board providing an actual direction, and rather than carefully
transcribing it into a wiki page and locking it away, never to be read
or talked out or advocated for again, actually advocating for it and
getting the word out about it. Making sure everyone on the project
understands where we are headed. Making the case and providing a good
story for the positive change in the world that direction can bring, and
how that aligns with Fedora's DNA.

~m

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-17-2012, 07:34 PM
Thorsten Leemhuis
 
Default Tying threads together.

Hi!

it has been some time since I wrote to this list. Nevertheless I'd like
to add two quick comments ;-)

On 15.02.2012 18:58, María Leandro wrote:
> El 15 de febrero de 2012 12:30, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@redhat.com
> <mailto:rbergero@redhat.com>> escribió:
>
> Just as Mo said with Mailing lists, also our wiki needs a bit of
> arrangement. If a new contributor needs something that is not point out
> on frontpage will get lost into a complete mess that is ok for regular
> contributors, but not for new users.

+1 -- I sometimes wondered if the wiki should be split into two: one
that targets users and one that is for contributors. That distinction
might makes a few things harder, but a lot of others easier. For
example, right now ordinary users that use the wiki search often get
search results for pages that are only of interest for contributors and
thus make their life unnecessary hard.

And it would make clear which pages are good for translation (those
targeting users) and which not (most of those that are for developers
I'd say). Outdated translations of contributors docs is something that
confused me a few times already and one of the reasons why I wrote this
mail. Because just today a colleague of mine got confused because this
wiki change
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features%2FF17BtrfsDefaultFs&actio n=historysubmit&diff=270634&oldid=268782
was not yet transferred to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F17BtrfsDefaultFs/it

it's just a details, but those small inconsistencies can easily confuse
journalists ;-)

Cu
knurd
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-18-2012, 03:20 PM
inode0
 
Default Tying threads together.

2012/2/15 Máirín Duffy <duffy@fedoraproject.org>:
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:21 -0600, inode0 wrote:
>> "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read"
>> http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
>
>> Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex
>> http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html
>
> John, I'm not sure in which way you meant for these to be interpreted,
> but there is a lot of good brain food here; thank you for suggesting it.
> I saw two possible ways to interpret these:

I am so happy someone made the effort to think about these, thanks
Máirín. Rather than viewing these as disjoint alternate ways of
interpreting the message I think both of them need to be considered.

> Interpretation #1)
>
> "In order to accomplish something, you can't start from scratch every
> time. Whether it's a functional communication system or the presence of
> vendors who can sell you er, graphite, you can't provide everything you
> need to make the thing you're aiming for from scratch. There's
> infrastructure and materials and community needed that you can't all do
> yourself."

I agree with this but also take away that those who do contribute the
building blocks that we use to create Fedora are part of our community
whether they recognize that or not and whether they agree with our
foundations or not.

> To this reading, I say, yes! I believe we put far too much burden on
> folks trying to get things done, where they must start from ground zero
> and build a ton of things on their own rather than focus on the thing it
> is they really want to work on, because those support structures /
> infrastructure are just not working at the level we need them to if they
> exist at all. Sadly I think that because no one person can do everything
> on their own, and there's this expectation that they should somehow
> figure out how to make it happen, to have the vision, leadership,
> organization, coding & design & writing skills when they can't possibly
> have all of that.
>
> Note how the open source community as a whole has this emphasis on 'rock
> stars.' Well, yes, the people who get things done are 'rock stars'
> because you have to be to get anything done! This is not a *good*
> thing!!
>
> We have to do a better job at enabling the collective mind that Ridley
> refers to, or we'll be limited by the ability / skills of our own
> personal islands.

Yay, we agree on this.

> Interpretation #2)
>
> "We should let people work on whatever they want to work on, and somehow
> magically something wonderful like a pencil will come out of it."

That is one of the lessons of the pencil too. It did come out of an
environment of where people with different dreams and ambitions worked
together without knowing they were working together to make a pencil
possible. The magic that made it possible in that context was a
certain level of dispersed economic liberty sufficient for bits and
pieces (ideas) to come into existence for various unrelated reasons
and form themselves into something new (after they had sex).

Closer to home I think we can see many fundamental components of
Fedora that are key to our success but that did not arise from their
creators participating in our project or even necessarily believing in
the mission of our project. But our mission includes their work and
the support of and nurturing of the environment from which it arose.
And that magic is a little different than the one for the pencil,
although it also has a foundation in personal liberty. But I think it
too is critical to our success and is something we need to keep in
mind and work toward making possible. And in this area we largely do
need to stand out of the way to let things grow independently of our
preconceived ideas until such time as they become a question of
integration into our "product."

My personal feeling here is that this is where the majority of
innovation comes from and we need to be as flexible and supportive of
new ideas developing at the ground floor as we can. But innovation of
new technology is only part of what makes us Fedora. The answer to
everything isn't "stand back and stay out of the way."

> (I *really* don't like this one so I'll hold the commentary on it.)
>
>> One large thing though is the idea in both that stuff happens, and
>> really great stuff, without central planning of some sort. A base of
>> freedom suitable to the context is enough. Points for a Board that
>> doesn't try to direct all the traffic. But there is a related point I
>> take away that I think will resonate here with Máirín and others. That
>> is that we can help make great stuff happen, not by figuring it all
>> out and telling people what to do but by creating the culture or a
>> framework that fosters and promotes the sorts of freedom and ease of
>> doing that enables others to achieve what *they* want to achieve.
>
> But what do you do when person A wants to achieve something that is
> diametrically opposed to what person B wants to achieve?

The pencil maker gets to decide whether to use the GNOME eraser or the
KDE eraser in the product it produces and so does the Fedora Project.
However, the pencil maker is better off having such problems to decide
and should help both eraser makers make better erasers. Integration
and inclusion in the "product" is clearly something Fedora needs to
decide and is an area where we can't stand back and tell our suppliers
to fight it out amongst themselves.

> I mean, the project does need an identity with which to attract
> like-minded folks so we can be productive. An extreme example to
> illustrate this: Canucks fans showing up to the Boston Bruins victory
> parade. That's not great stuff happening; that's likely a riot. (Sorry
> Vancouver fans.)

One of the lessons I take away from the life of the pencil is that not
everyone needs to be like-minded. Those mining the graphite and those
harvesting the wood don't even need to like each other at all. It is
nice if they do get along, but even if they don't they both are
contributing to the pencil community and their contributions are
critical to its success.

> People do have 'tribes.' That's human nature, I think. If we have no
> identity or position or defining vision driving the project, then how is
> a potential contributor to know this is a place that resonates with
> them? If anything goes, if you can do whatever you want as long as you
> can get the boots on the ground, then we really don't have functional
> vision at all, only a dream on paper.

Yeah, I agree here to a point. I do think we need a vision and broadly
shared goals to function well as an organization. But I also think we
should do a far better job of recognizing that not everyone who works
in and contributes to our community will share them. No matter what we
do or say people will come to us for their own reasons.

> If we keep the entire thing completely undefined and feed to anyone who
> expresses a desire to help the notion that they can do anything that
> they want if they make it happen - we will get lots of factions and
> disagreements, wasting a lot of time and effort on conflict rather than
> churning out awesome things that make a real positive difference in the
> world.
>
> If I could only, only get back those hours and days of my life wasted in
> GNOME vs KDE bickering, or VIM vs EMACS bickering, or GNU/Linux vs
> Linux, or Free Software vs Open Source, or <insert FLOSS holy war
> here>... but I will never get them back. What awesome things could I
> have worked on with that time instead? Multiply that across our
> contributor base, and it's downright depressing.

And this is something I hope we can work on now. You are completely
right and one of the places where the pencil/Fedora analogy breaks
down most is that in the life of the pencil the component producers
were largely isolated from one another. So the graphite miners didn't
fight with the wood cutters because they really had no way of
interacting. The various graphite producers didn't fight with each
other about pencils because they weren't even producing graphite with
pencils in mind. In our world that is very different and does breed a
lot of wasted cycles bickering.

So the solution that keeps coming up is to kick out the most egregious
troublemakers in the community which I think is doomed to failure for
multiple reasons. It doesn't actually ever happen is one reason. But
even if it did happen we would be diminished by both the loss of
contributions that come from agitated contributors and the loss of
unknown contributors offended by the heavy handed tactics.

I would really like to see more people have the view when confronted
with difficult to deal with people that they understand and appreciate
that they (or others with similar dispositions) do make valuable
contributions and that the burden of stopping the bickering rests on
them. It does take two sides to prolong bickering and one side just
needs to stop, let those we might think are clearly wrong have the
last word, and trust that in the end a decision will be made to
resolve things from others with clear heads.

>> Máirín has suggested work by the Board in this area a number of times
>> and I agree that the Board should be engaged in this way. What sort of
>> things allow people to achieve their goals within the Fedora Project?
>> How can we improve those things?
>
> Fixing communication. I have a million and three ideas on how this could
> be realized. They shouldn't be new to anybody reading this thread.

And I agree in principle with you that the Board would be right in
suggesting ideas, encouraging groups to participate in solving
"community infrastructure" problems, and so on. We might in spots
disagree about what problems need solving but we don't disagree that
it is the Board's business to look after the community and help to
create a community can thrive. In the end that community should be
producing the results we are looking for, although not all of that
community will care about or buy into those goals.

> The board providing an actual direction, and rather than carefully
> transcribing it into a wiki page and locking it away, never to be read
> or talked out or advocated for again, actually advocating for it and
> getting the word out about it. Making sure everyone on the project
> understands where we are headed. Making the case and providing a good
> story for the positive change in the world that direction can bring, and
> how that aligns with Fedora's DNA.

I don't think the Board or anyone else really understands where we are
headed beyond philosophical sound bites long term. But there are
shorter term things that the Board could certainly lead us toward as
you have described on numerous occasions. And I can heartily endorse
the Board having an advocacy role as you describe above.

As a side note I will mention that I've seen the energy level change
dramatically in groups when the FPL has taken an active role
participating in those groups. Of course the FPL can't give personal
attention at this level to every group but can wisely choose one or
two to make an impact with. And I think the Board's decision to
champion endeavors individually while serving on the Board may help
spread that sort of added inspiration and energy to more parts of the
project than the FPL can alone. So good work Board on this count and I
hope it has the desired result.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-19-2012, 04:35 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default Tying threads together.

On 02/17/2012 01:34 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

Hi!

it has been some time since I wrote to this list. Nevertheless I'd like
to add two quick comments ;-)

On 15.02.2012 18:58, María Leandro wrote:

El 15 de febrero de 2012 12:30, Robyn Bergeron<rbergero@redhat.com
<mailto:rbergero@redhat.com>> escribió:

Just as Mo said with Mailing lists, also our wiki needs a bit of
arrangement. If a new contributor needs something that is not point out
on frontpage will get lost into a complete mess that is ok for regular
contributors, but not for new users.

+1 -- I sometimes wondered if the wiki should be split into two: one
that targets users and one that is for contributors. That distinction
might makes a few things harder, but a lot of others easier. For
example, right now ordinary users that use the wiki search often get
search results for pages that are only of interest for contributors and
thus make their life unnecessary hard.
Even experienced contributors that use the wiki search sometimes want to
chew off their hands and cry. (I know myself that I usually prefer
using google to search for things on the wiki rather than using the wiki
search.)


I don't know about necessarily "splitting" it into two wikis - I think
there is just a ton of information that winds up affecting both groups.
One of the great things about the wiki is that it's probably one of the
easiest ways for for an end user to begin to contribute -- essentially
helping them to cross over the mental barrier of learning that they can
contribute in ways that are not just "writing code," that they can truly
participate, etc. -- and my worry would be that we start to create
walled gardens, or isolate one group from another. Perhaps I'm just
paranoid though.


Perhaps there's a way to optimize the wiki search - by selecting "for
contributors" or "for end users" - etc. I would think that a lot of what
end users want to see is pointed to from the front wiki page -- which
makes me wonder if we really have a lot of end users searching the wiki,
or if they're just landing on wiki pages via google searches, etc.


Do we have a way to see what people have been looking for in the wiki?
Or is that all privacy-ish? (And thus - going and seeing if what they're
hitting is remotely relevant, up to date, etc.?) How do people wind up
landing on pages that they land on?



And it would make clear which pages are good for translation (those
targeting users) and which not (most of those that are for developers
I'd say). Outdated translations of contributors docs is something that
confused me a few times already and one of the reasons why I wrote this
mail. Because just today a colleague of mine got confused because this
wiki change
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features%2FF17BtrfsDefaultFs&actio n=historysubmit&diff=270634&oldid=268782
was not yet transferred to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F17BtrfsDefaultFs/it
That one is probably on me -- I didn't really realize that (a) there was
a lone feature page translated into italian (b) that category changes
don't follow across translated versions of a page.



it's just a details, but those small inconsistencies can easily confuse
journalists ;-)

Cu
knurd
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-19-2012, 05:44 PM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default Tying threads together.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:35:33 -0700
Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@redhat.com> wrote:

> Even experienced contributors that use the wiki search sometimes want
> to chew off their hands and cry. (I know myself that I usually
> prefer using google to search for things on the wiki rather than
> using the wiki search.)
>
> I don't know about necessarily "splitting" it into two wikis - I
> think there is just a ton of information that winds up affecting both
> groups. One of the great things about the wiki is that it's probably
> one of the easiest ways for for an end user to begin to contribute
> -- essentially helping them to cross over the mental barrier of
> learning that they can contribute in ways that are not just "writing
> code," that they can truly participate, etc. -- and my worry would be
> that we start to create walled gardens, or isolate one group from
> another. Perhaps I'm just paranoid though.
>
> Perhaps there's a way to optimize the wiki search - by selecting "for
> contributors" or "for end users" - etc. I would think that a lot of
> what end users want to see is pointed to from the front wiki page --
> which makes me wonder if we really have a lot of end users searching
> the wiki, or if they're just landing on wiki pages via google
> searches, etc.
>
> Do we have a way to see what people have been looking for in the
> wiki? Or is that all privacy-ish? (And thus - going and seeing if
> what they're hitting is remotely relevant, up to date, etc.?) How do
> people wind up landing on pages that they land on?

I'll interject here and note that we are working on a search engine
solution in Fedora Infrastructure. We have settled on dataparksearch as
the engine. Hopefully we will have a test instance up before too long
and can start testing it and see if it meets our needs.

Pretty much anything is going to be better than the mediawiki default
search, so I think it will be a win. (Also, indexing things like docs,
pkgdb, fedorahosted, etc in addition to the wiki I hope will be a big
win).

kevin
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:50 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org