255 lines
12 KiB
HTML
255 lines
12 KiB
HTML
<!-- MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
|
|
<!--X-Subject: Processing HOWTOs -->
|
|
<!--X-From-R13: Egrva Uwbra <ftwbraNznvy.alk.arg> -->
|
|
<!--X-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:24:02 -0500 (EST) -->
|
|
<!--X-Message-Id: 388EBCB2.95774F2@mail.nyx.net -->
|
|
<!--X-Content-Type: text/plain -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 20000124233050.A22764@morgana.systemy.it -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 388CDAB8.579A83E3@cu-portland.edu -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: m3vh4hlubm.fsf@maya.linux.ca -->
|
|
<!--X-Head-End-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Processing HOWTOs</title>
|
|
<link rev="made" href="mailto:sgjoen@mail.nyx.net">
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
[<a href="msg01149.html">Date Prev</a>][<a href="msg01151.html">Date Next</a>][<a href="msg01149.html">Thread Prev</a>][<a href="msg01153.html">Thread Next</a>][<a href="maillist.html#01150">Date Index</a>][<a href="threads.html#01150">Thread Index</a>]
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-->
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
|
|
<h1>Processing HOWTOs</h1>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Subject</em>: Processing HOWTOs</li>
|
|
<li><em>From</em>: Stein Gjoen <<A HREF="mailto:sgjoen@mail.nyx.net">sgjoen@mail.nyx.net</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Date</em>: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:21:54 +0100</li>
|
|
<li><em>Cc</em>: LDP Discuss List <<A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>References</em>: <20000124233050.A22764@morgana.systemy.it> <<a href="msg01137.html">388CDAB8.579A83E3@cu-portland.edu</a>> <<a href="msg01149.html">m3vh4hlubm.fsf@maya.linux.ca</a>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-cc</em>: recipient list not shown: ;</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-date</em>: 26 Jan 2000 09:22:33 -0000</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-from</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-message-id</em>: <BCH1wB.A.rsE.Zzrj4@murphy></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
|
|
<pre>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
> As we say in North America: "Close but no cigar" or perhaps "standing
|
|
> on the right road, but going in the wrong direction"
|
|
>
|
|
> >>>>> "G" == Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc@cu-portland.edu> writes:
|
|
>
|
|
> >> I think the LDP should insist on being notified *before*
|
|
> >> people start writing.
|
|
>
|
|
> G> That IS part of what the LDP is here to do. If one reads the
|
|
> G> LDP website, and/or the HOWTO-HOWTO (I can't remember where it
|
|
> G> was) it says that you should attempt to contact the HOWTO
|
|
> G> coordinator before you begin writing anything.
|
|
>
|
|
> And indeed it does.
|
|
|
|
In my experience the readers are too timid to approach the authors
|
|
directly, a semi anonymous web log, perhaps for each document, would
|
|
perhaps lower the threshold and give us more feedback.
|
|
|
|
> >> It's a big problem of image, quality must be much more
|
|
> >> important than quantity, and people must be used to this.
|
|
>
|
|
> IMHO, while the LDP is amazing, let's not kid ourselves about quality.
|
|
>
|
|
> The quality control is non-existant. There is no tagging of documents
|
|
> to versions, no consistency of distribution variations, no tracking of
|
|
> user stats and no stakeholder review, and many ancient docs which
|
|
> should be weeded out are kept because "they are all we have on that
|
|
> subject".
|
|
|
|
Sadly true. So when is the core team going to post a request
|
|
for new authors or maintainers on <A HREF="news:comp.os.linux.announce">news:comp.os.linux.announce</A> ?
|
|
It wouldn't cost to try.
|
|
|
|
> The LDP is, however, still _amazing_ : it is amazing that it exists at
|
|
> all, entirely out of volunteer labour and community support. Even the
|
|
> FSF spawned nothing like it despite a 10 year head start. But let's
|
|
> be real here: We have no docs, not one, in the entire LDP collection
|
|
> to compare with the EMACS, ELISP or GLIB manuals from the FSF. Those
|
|
> are quality works worthy of being published as books. What we have
|
|
> are disjoint read-me's and man pages by comparison.
|
|
>
|
|
> >> *must* be strict technical review, and only good documents must
|
|
> >> be approved. At least, there must be a "blessed" set of
|
|
> >> documents and a "mass" of contributed stuff, either badly
|
|
> >> written, or incorrect, or just redundant of other documents.
|
|
>
|
|
> And who does this judging? We could also use some editorial revisions,
|
|
> but it won't happen without a business plan; it's hard enough to find
|
|
> people to create documents, but to ask someone else to revise them is
|
|
> somewhat pushing the realm of possibilities.
|
|
|
|
In the 4 years or so I have maintained the Multi Disk HOWTO I have
|
|
only had 3 in depth comments from readers; that is not much and I
|
|
would like more.
|
|
|
|
> >> To this aim, we need a charismatic leader or group of leaders,
|
|
> >> who can accept and refuse works without offending anybody.
|
|
>
|
|
> No, we need a process whereby docs can be rated and comments attached
|
|
> by the user base. We need stats to show which docs are actually read,
|
|
> and a followup process which asks the reader if the doc was actually
|
|
> helpful. This is basic Customer Support 101.
|
|
|
|
To get proper stats we also need to promote. I did some automated
|
|
web promotion of my HOWTO and raised the hit counts from
|
|
about 50 a day to 300-500 a day. What has the core team done in
|
|
this respect? This is hardly the firt time I ask/suggest but I
|
|
have yet to see an answer. Some actual hit stats from the LDP
|
|
site would tell us how we are doing.
|
|
|
|
> Maybe we should treat authors like software authors: When someone is
|
|
> the maintainer of a software package, they put their email address on
|
|
> it. They _expect_ to receive bug reports and gripes which are then
|
|
> folded back into the software to improve it. When it gets to be too
|
|
> much for them, they hand the reigns to someone else.
|
|
>
|
|
> How about this: A new display engine on the website which lists the
|
|
> requested doc in the right frame, but down the left margin lists
|
|
> the title, the date, author contact info and the version numbers of
|
|
> mentioned software. Below this is a survey form that says "How
|
|
> useful is this doc?" Then, once we have a significant database of
|
|
> reviews, when someone searches for a doc, the search results page
|
|
> shows the title of the document followed by its review metrics, its
|
|
> age and the version numbers.
|
|
|
|
Good idea, I second this.
|
|
|
|
> Maybe a requirement for LDP authors should be an explicit ownership
|
|
> clause in the submission process which says "You agree to maintain
|
|
> this component" --- if someone doesn't want the great hoards of users
|
|
> sending them email to complain about a typo, them maybe an LDP doc is
|
|
> not for them, or they should add their doc to the "unmaintained" list.
|
|
>
|
|
> Part of this is also proper dating of material. All LDP docs should
|
|
> say right at the top the date of last revision, and the search engine
|
|
> results must tell me this. What good is it to find a ppp-2.1 or a
|
|
> kernel-2.0 doc? Maybe I really am looking for help with old
|
|
> technology, but I will bet real money most queries against the LDP
|
|
> search engine are looking for help with the most recent Linux
|
|
> distributions --- the vast majority of the Linux users out there today
|
|
> have been using Linux for less than a year.
|
|
|
|
Again this is not the first time this topic comes up and many
|
|
authors were approached by a 3.rd party willing to take up that
|
|
job. Nothing has been heard of since.
|
|
|
|
I proposed an automated cooperation with Freshmeat, another idea
|
|
that sunk mostly without a trace. Yet when I check the place
|
|
<A HREF="http://freshmeat.net/search.php3?query=HOWTO">http://freshmeat.net/search.php3?query=HOWTO</A>
|
|
I find 17 HOWTOs have quietly been registered, and tracking
|
|
numbers and dating is done, an example:
|
|
<A HREF="http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/06/26/930410556.html">http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/06/26/930410556.html</A>
|
|
Looking closer I notice it is possible for users to make
|
|
comments directly to those web pages. It does look like
|
|
Freshmeat ALREADY has done what we have talked about.
|
|
|
|
Secondly being tracked in the Freshmeat database also
|
|
means your updates will automatically be announces to
|
|
Linux Weekly News.
|
|
|
|
Looking closer I see some more interesting programs, check out
|
|
<A HREF="http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/04/01/922967500.html">http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/04/01/922967500.html</A>
|
|
<A HREF="http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/09/20/937809864.html">http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/09/20/937809864.html</A>
|
|
|
|
> >> This is how free software works: there always is a maintainer
|
|
> >> who accepts and refuses contributions, and nobody ever sends in
|
|
> >> stuff pretending it gets accepted.
|
|
>
|
|
> And so there should be, but, like software, we want a maintainer for
|
|
> each and every doc, not one all powerful overlord for the entire
|
|
> collection, and like freshmeat, the LDP need not pass any judgement
|
|
> but let the community at large determine the worth of each.
|
|
|
|
I suggest we get a TODO list of good ideas up. Many ideas come
|
|
up again and again and sink without trace. I think even a TODO
|
|
list was mentioned some time ago but funnily enough nothing
|
|
happened.
|
|
|
|
In the absence of LDP activity other entities have taken up the
|
|
slack. rather than gnashing teeth over this I suggest strongly
|
|
we start cooperating as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
Regards,
|
|
Stein Gjoen
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
|
|
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<ul><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01156" href="msg01156.html">Re: Processing HOWTOs</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Guylhem Aznar <guylhem@metalab.unc.edu></li></ul></li>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01169" href="msg01169.html">Re: Processing HOWTOs</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
|
|
<!--X-References-->
|
|
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01137" href="msg01137.html">Re: mini-HOWTO</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc@cu-portland.edu></li></ul></li>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01149" href="msg01149.html">Re: mini-HOWTO</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@canada.com></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-References-End-->
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Prev by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01149.html">Re: mini-HOWTO</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01151.html">Re: mini-HOWTO</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Previous by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01149.html">Re: mini-HOWTO</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01153.html">Re: Processing HOWTOs</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Index(es):
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="maillist.html#01150"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="threads.html#01150"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|