11 Dec 2009 Meeting - chat log and etherpad document
Israel Saeta Pérez <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I'm attaching the chat log and the Etherpad document of the meeting. You can also check the Etherpad document (with info about who wrote what) at http://etherpad.com/VxXAWVRFyp , but beware of unexpected ether-vandalism. ;) Please note this is just FYI - I will send a clearer summary later. -- israel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Plone-docs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
11dec2009-etherpad.html
(text/html, 8.6 KB)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Linux)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20091211;19532300">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20091211;19540200">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
H1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
H1.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif }
H1.cjk { font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans" }
H1.ctl { font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans" }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.2in"><STRONG>All editors should sign and
file a contributors agreement.</STRONG></P>
<H1 CLASS="western">What has been done</H1>
<P><BR>* Migrate to latest PHC version (3.0b1 or 3.0b2)<BR><BR>*
Knowledgebase (KB) created : <A HREF="http://plone.org/documentation/kb/" TARGET="_blank">http://plone.org/documentation/kb/</A><BR><BR>*
Manuals and tutorials and howtos moved around both sections<BR><BR>*
Some manuals were aggregated - manuals now form the 'core'
documentation<BR><BR>* Based on the reviews of docs a while ago
(check
<A HREF="http://www.coactivate.org/projects/plone-documentation/project-home" TARGET="_blank">http://www.coactivate.org/projects/plone-documentation/project-home</A>,
now it's down) we made a start on cutting and pasting how-tos and
tutorials into the manuals<BR><BR><BR><BR>
</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">KB/Manuals: permissions and policies</H1>
<P><BR>* KB rights will be modeled on collective; very easy to get.
Folks will be able to create documents with only member rights, but
will need to get doc collective rights to publish or edit others'
work. Sounds decent.<BR><BR>* (The reason to require doc collective
rights is to avoid link spam. With a top page rank, we're a serious
target for link spam.)<BR><BR>* Application to join doc collective
will be either by:<BR><BR>* adding a new doc<BR><BR>* posting a
ticket to request membership<BR><BR>* Manual editors will be
successors to editors. A much more tightly watched list, modeled on
core dev. Signing a contributors agreement will be required.<BR><BR>*
Application to become a core document editor will be by filing
contrib agreement, then filing a ticket.<BR><BR>* Author in manual
section will be "Plone Documentation Team" — not
individual who created doc. Credits via contributors.<BR><BR><A HREF="javascript:;">SteveM</A>
will implement workflow for manuals as soon as possible; there's no
reason to wait to restrict that.</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">What is left to do</H1>
<P><BR>* Organize docs structure correctly (see developer manual).<BR><BR>*
Make a list of broken stuff and provide redirections where neccessary
(Most Developer Manual links are broken:
<A HREF="http://plone.org/documentation/manual/developer-manual/" TARGET="_blank">http://plone.org/documentation/manual/developer-manual/</A>
) /manage-aliases (much of this wound up in the core developer manual
by accident, just cut and paste it to the developer manual)<BR><BR>*
Licensing of both sections - It's a modified version of the <A HREF="javascript:;">WordPress</A>
TOS, using <A HREF="javascript:;">CC-BY-NC</A><BR><BR>* When is the
new UI going to be rolled in? Steve will ask Limi.<BR><BR>*
<A HREF="http://dev.plone.org/plone/report/31" TARGET="_blank">http://dev.plone.org/plone/report/31</A>
- list of "PHC Upgrade" tagged tickets.<BR><BR>*
<A HREF="https://dev.plone.org/old/plone/ticket/9924" TARGET="_blank">https://dev.plone.org/old/plone/ticket/9924</A>
- Next/Previous buttons point to the wrong page in some manuals -
Steve will remove it until we find a correct implementation.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">Discuss any other decisions that need to be made</H1>
<P><BR>* Core (officially endorsed) docs workflow proposal:
<A HREF="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19294323/Plone-Core-Docs-workflow" TARGET="_blank">http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19294323/Plone-Core-Docs-workflow</A>.
The beginning state in this diagram is Private. I'm jumping in kinda
late here, but have we considered a more optimistic workflow? For
example, a document could start out in "community-contributed"
status (and have the advantage of being immediately available) but
later be *promoted* to endorsed status. That way, we get the best of
both worlds. Yeah but I think we were looking at that as a manual
process rather than something enshrined in the workflow per se. Any
particular reason? Yes. One of the things I'd want to see in the core
docs is consistency of terminology and presentation, to make things
as clear as possible. +1 there. So any thing adopted into the core is
likely to go through quite a complex re-edit. Gotcha. I might be
getting too detailed now, but do you think most re-edits will
preserve the atomicity of the documents, so <A HREF="javascript:;">URLs</A>
would stay the same after adoption into the core? To be honest no,
from what I've been doing so far with docs from the KB its very often
a rewrite, and I suspect that in the future I'd be looking at leaving
the original in the KB and pulling what was required into the shape
of the manual (but that's my opinion only based on the
theme-reference manual as it stands. Ah, then I see why workflow
wouldn't cut it. I was just concerned to not have contributed docs
unavailable (even if unendorsed) until somebody gets time to vet
them. Sounds reasonable to me.<BR><BR>* Editors team. Renewal? Do we
drop editor role?
<A HREF="http://plone.org/documentation/kb/documentation-team-editors" TARGET="_blank">http://plone.org/documentation/kb/documentation-team-editors</A>
- drop editors per section scheme and move to an editors per manual
one.<BR><BR><BR>
</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">Volunteering / people going to do something</H1>
<P><BR>* cbess - want to contribute development core documentation<BR><BR>*
dukebody, <A HREF="javascript:;">ErikRose</A> - organize developers
manual structure and provide redirections from old manuals and howtos
to here.<BR><BR>* dylan jay & mikko: assist w/ developer
manual<BR><BR>* Jon Stahl, (<A HREF="javascript:;">SteveM</A>) -
write a document about kb/manuals policies.<BR><BR>* veda, dukebody
anneb - cut and paste if i have time, contact mark corum to connect
w/ israel, create tickets based on notes on coactivate<BR><BR>*
johnstahl - contribution agreements and documentation licensing sent
to the Plone Foundation board.<BR><BR>* anneb - doc about what do we
want the core docs (manuals) section to be<BR><BR>* veda - make sure
the version a certain document applies to is clearly shown in the new
UI<BR><BR>* dukebody - Plone 4 documentation<BR><BR>* mark corum?<BR><BR><BR><BR>
</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">The Redirection Problem (as interpreted by anneb)</H1>
<P><BR>Some of this is guess work. We had two things to do -
aggregate some of the manuals and make a start on cutting and pasting
items over into the manuals. What we found was that a manual couldn't
be cut and pasted into another manual, so it was a copy and paste
job. Then it wasn't possible to delete the original containers.<BR><BR>I
also encountered the same problem with moving how-tos into manuals -
the manual wouldn't accept the how-to as a content type. So it was a
copy and paste job again. I also couldn't move the container of a
tutorial, though I could move the internal leaves, then I found I
couldn't delete the empty container or add an internal page to
indicate that the item had been moved.<BR><BR>Of course, we didn't
think through the implications of automatic redirection not
working.<BR><BR>I went over most of the things I'd moved and added
aliases to them on some evenings this week. Bless your heart. I
didn't deal with the manuals, but I can do this if you like - except
I'm busy this weekend, so it might be a day or so. I think that'd be
hugely helpful; we were really stymied yesterday. Fortunately, I had
Manager rights and could search stuff out.<BR><BR>OK, I'll try to
find some time - shouldn't be too difficult. Bless your heart a
second time. :-)</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">Future stuff</H1>
<P><BR>* Move away from coactivate.org - it's no longer necessary.<BR><BR>*
Style guide and terminology conventions for manuals.<BR><BR>* Working
copy support for core docs.<BR><BR>* Support for different versions
of a doc for different Plone versions.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">Plone 4 Documentation</H1>
<P>Sprint @ <A HREF="javascript:;">Six-Feet</A> Up? I'm assuming it's
dead in the water.<BR>PLIP documentation progressing?<BR>Migration
docs top priority!<BR>Review new themes and adjust manual to
incorporate changes in Plone 4<BR>Rules based theming<BR><BR><BR>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
11dec2009-chatlog.txt
(text/plain, 43.9 KB)
[Friday 11 December 2009] [18:01:28] Topic You set the channel topic to "Doc team meeting now! - Working Etherpad: http://etherpad.com/VxXAWVRFyp". [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:02:07] <anneb> Are we officially meeting now? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:02:19] <anneb> Should we start at the top of the agenda [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:02:20] <ErikRose> I thought so. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:02:54] <dukebody> mmm [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:02:58] <dukebody> I miss Veda. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:09] Join csenger has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:11] <dukebody> And SteveM and perhaps Limi. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:17] <dukebody> Wait 5 minutes please. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:43] Join aclark has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:47] <aclark> everyone! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:49] <dukebody> They were the ones more involved in the PHC migration... [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:50] <dukebody> aclark: ! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:56] <anneb> OK [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:03:58] <ErikRose> aclark&! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:04:03] Join cbess has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:05:56] <cbess> what does "kb" mean? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:06:00] <ErikRose> knowledge base? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:06:03] <cbess> ah [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:08:27] <dukebody> I don't know if we should directly use Etherpad instead of this channel. :P [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:08:40] <ErikRose> I love the context-sensitivity of Etherpad. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:08:52] <ErikRose> Discussion goes next to the agenda item. It supports multiple threads of discussion better. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:09:23] <esteele> You can use the time slider link to watch it play back as conversation. :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:09:26] <dukebody> Well, nor Veda nor Steve nor Limi are showing up, so I think we should start. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:11:26] <dukebody> Well, over last weekend, if I didn't get it wrong, SteveM, Veda, John Stahl and Limi performed the agreed upon PHC migration on plone.org. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:11:46] * aclark was there too (remotely) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:11:51] <ErikRose> What were the big new features? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:11:51] <dukebody> ok [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:12:10] <dukebody> All documentation content-types are now standard AT content-types, or something like that. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:12:15] <dukebody> (stevem work) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:12:29] <aclark> ErikRose: look at http://plone.org/documentation/ndocs [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:12:45] Join InneGalles has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:12:51] <aclark> apparently i'm supposed to be doing something so they can launch this? haven't had time… [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:13:17] <ErikRose> Ooo! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:13:22] <dukebody> Also, a KnowledgeBase was created as a more free space to publish documentation. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:13:24] <esteele> Wow! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:13:47] <esteele> I loathe the full-justification though. :P [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:13:48] <ErikRose> FWIW, I can't undisclose a section. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:14:07] <ErikRose> Yeah, columns are too thin for that, but that's a bike shed. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:14:07] <esteele> ErikRose: Click on another. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:14:18] <ErikRose> Ooo, surprise surprise. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:14:44] <dukebody> The core section will be editor (or whatever other role) reviewed, while the KB will be open for all submissions without review. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:10] <cbess> i would like to participate in developer documentation [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:16] <cbess> how do i "sign-up" for that? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:19] <dukebody> According to what Steve told me, we intend to create a group to control who can write documentation to the KB, somethink like "collective access". [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:24] <dukebody> cbess: core or kb? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:30] <cbess> dukebody: core [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:33] <ErikRose> I don't see a link to a KB. SHould I? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:49] <dukebody> http://plone.org/documentation/kb/ [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:15:55] * dahoste is lurking to get a feel for docs and such. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:16:16] <dukebody> cbess: you've already signed up just saying it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:16:21] <dukebody> I will keep you on my list ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:16:25] <cbess> dukebody: nice [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:16:39] <cbess> dukebody: cool, let me know what to do :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:16:48] <cbess> dukebody: i'll be around the irc [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:16:56] <dukebody> ok, don't worry, I'll tell you ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:17:06] <dukebody> there's enough stuff to do, you won't get bored. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:17:12] <cbess> heh [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:17:20] <dukebody> Ok, so did you understand what happened this last weekend? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:17:36] <ErikRose> I think a summary would be helpful for us late arrivers. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:17:53] <dukebody> It's written at the top of the etherpad. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:18:07] <ErikRose> ah, that's all there is to it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:18:10] <dukebody> PHC migration, KB creation, manuals and tutorials and howtos moved around. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:18:28] <dukebody> Limi has been working on the UI. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:18:52] <ErikRose> I hope redirections were preserved. We had some trouble with a disappearing AT Dev Manual disappearing yesterday. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:18:59] <dukebody> I didn't participate in the migration myself so perhaps anneb knows more about this. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:03] <ErikRose> preserved -> made [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:05] <dukebody> ErikRose: I know. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:21] <dukebody> Plone 3 (thanks to optilude's code IIRC) has automatic redirections. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:27] <dukebody> plone.app.redirect or something like that. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:35] <ErikRose> Yep, I've made fixes to that. :-) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:37] <anneb> I'll write up the whole redirection complexity on etherpad now [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:40] <dukebody> So redirections *should* be preserved. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:50] <dukebody> thanks [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:52] Join r0ver has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:19:54] <ErikRose> Not sure why it didn't work; I think content was moved from doc to doc. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:20:07] <dukebody> r0ver: http://etherpad.com/VxXAWVRFyp [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:20:12] <ErikRose> Maybe Google just needs a weekend to catch up. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:20:18] <dukebody> ErikRose: some content where copy-pasted inside manuals. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:20:54] <ErikRose> I'll try googling for "archetypes developer manual" in a few days. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:21:25] <dukebody> And some content can't be deleted. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:21:28] <dukebody> It's kind of broken. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:21:40] <dukebody> According to Steve, actions are fouled up for some items. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:21:55] <dukebody> We will have to make a list and hand it to SteveM so he can delete them manually. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:22:50] <dukebody> thanks anneb [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:23:17] <dukebody> Ok so did you get what has been done? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:23:29] <dukebody> (did you all get) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:23:38] * ErikRose gets it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:24:20] <dukebody> The worst thing about this (IMO) is that some items/links are broken. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:24:36] <ErikRose> Yes, I'm in the final proofs of my book, and I've been chasing links around like mad. :-) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:24:53] <dukebody> So people arrive to a nearly page without info about where did the content go. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:24:58] <dukebody> nearly empty page [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:25:24] <dukebody> Most of them for Developers Manual/Reference stuff. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:25:45] <ErikRose> yip [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:26:12] <dukebody> Example: http://plone.org/documentation/manual/portlets-developer-manual [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:26:22] <dukebody> "Fix broken links then delete"? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:26:40] <dukebody> But I can't delete the item so I can't make a proper "manual" redirection [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:27:06] <ErikRose> Want me to delete something? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:27:43] <dukebody> ZMI doesn't work either. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:27:49] <dukebody> You will have to script it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:27:53] <ErikRose> Bleh. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:28:01] <dukebody> I'd prefer to speak to Steve before doing this. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:28:08] <ErikRose> ok [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:28:16] <dukebody> But we can make a list of broken stuff. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:29:10] <dukebody> cbess, ErikRose: can you work with me after the meeting in the Developer manual structure? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:29:30] <ErikRose> In a light and distracted way; I have another meeting. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:29:37] <dukebody> ok [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:29:46] <dukebody> I will work on it and ask for your feedback [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:29:54] <ErikRose> okeedoke [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:07] <ErikRose> Ready for the next agenda item? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:09] <dukebody> wow anneb has written a lot about the redirection problem [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:19] <ErikRose> Yep, she's nifty. :-) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:31] <anneb> Yeah, hope it makes sense though [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:33] Join SteveM has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:38] <ErikRose> Works for me! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:42] <ErikRose> Howdy, SteveM! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:49] <dukebody> SteveM! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:50] <anneb> SteveM! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:30:53] <SteveM> ErikRose! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:31:02] <SteveM> anneb, dukebody : Hi! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:31:07] <dukebody> we were missing you [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:31:14] <dukebody> SteveM: http://etherpad.com/VxXAWVRFyp [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:31:16] <esteele> aclark: Makes perfect sense to me. :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:31:18] <SteveM> Got up late this morning. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:31:53] <dukebody> esteele: what makes perfect sense? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:32:15] <esteele> Er, sorry. That was to anneb's "hope it makes sense" [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:33:45] <dukebody> Ok, Steve, please write about how to manage KB/core permissions and policies. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:33:49] * SteveM is writing something on permissions and policies. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:33:53] <dukebody> :D [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:33:58] <SteveM> Already at it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:35:02] Join vedawms has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:35:08] <dukebody> vedawms!! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:35:11] Join matthewwilkes_ has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:35:19] <vedawms> sorry, missed my bus [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:35:20] <anneb> vedawms! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:35:35] <vedawms> anything i can do / say to assist? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:35:42] <dukebody> vedawms: http://etherpad.com/VxXAWVRFyp [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:36:07] <vedawms> coactivate is down? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:36:11] <vedawms> i hear it's going away :( [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:36:15] <dukebody> vedawms: coactivate is down so we don't have your notes, right. :( [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:36:21] <dukebody> away? definitely??? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:36:39] <SteveM> We should be beginning a transition away from coactivate [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:36:48] <vedawms> yes, definitely [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:36:52] <SteveM> Word from OpenPlans folks is that it will be phased out. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:37:10] <dukebody> We have a lot of doc stuff there. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:37:58] <SteveM> This is not to happen soon, but it was a warning. I think we started on OpenPlans when Plone.Org was too slow. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:38:01] <SteveM> That's fixed. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:38:19] <ErikRose> sounds good [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:38:26] <ErikRose> I never liked OpenPlans anyway. :-) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:39:08] <SteveM> My notes on roles/permissions up [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:39:17] <dukebody> SteveM: I don't get how creating a new doc will trigger the application to get into the kb-documentation team. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:39:19] <ErikRose> It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:39:28] <vedawms> dukebody: content rules [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:39:38] <ErikRose> It'll be interesting to see how the 2 prongs of attack yield fruit. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:39:49] <SteveM> dukebody: I don't know yet either. Implementation details ... [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:40:01] <dukebody> SteveM: so is now the KB open? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:40:11] <dukebody> I mean, can any member contribute? What's the current state? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:40:24] <SteveM> dukebody: Right now, rights are unchanged. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:40:49] <SteveM> We need to have our policies ready to publicize before we change rights and workflow. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:41:06] <dukebody> Ok, you know the policies - can you work on a document to describe them [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:41:06] <dukebody> ? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:41:27] <SteveM> Jon Stahl's been working on that :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:41:40] <SteveM> Part of our little plone.org spring ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:42:11] <dukebody> SteveM: when is this likely going to happen? Before next year? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:42:15] <SteveM> s/spring/spring/ [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:42:23] <SteveM> s/spring/sprint/ [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:42:31] <dukebody> sorry? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:42:38] <dukebody> aah [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:42:43] <SteveM> dukebody: Multiple typos. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:42:44] <dukebody> sed :P [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:43:07] <SteveM> It should be ready to phase in with the new design. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:43:27] Quit MatthewWilkes has left this server (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:43:28] <dukebody> Ok, so when will the new design be rolled in? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:43:54] <dukebody> (likely) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:43:55] <SteveM> There are costs to leaving a task on limi's plate ... [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:44:12] <esteele> Tell me about it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:44:33] <SteveM> BTW, does everyone know how to do manual redirection setups on plone.org? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:44:35] <vedawms> anyone who can help? someone who's using collective.xdv? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:44:45] <dukebody> /@@manage-aliases [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:44:51] <SteveM> Indeed ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:45:18] <anneb> the only problem is that those won't work until the original is deleted which is proving problemativ [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:45:25] <anneb> or problematic even [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:45:30] <dukebody> so, do you have any idea about when will we have new UI? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:45:45] <dukebody> It's a blocker for implementing the kb/manuals policies I guess. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:45:58] <vedawms> anneb: can't we delete yet? i thought the special port were were using made it possible [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:46:17] <SteveM> I've no answer now (on new design). I'll plague limi as soon as I can catch him. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:46:29] <anneb> vedawms: I didn't try that - I'll have another go [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:46:32] <vedawms> (i haven't told anyone else about that port, fyi, b/c i wasn't sure it would be available for much longer) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:46:59] <vedawms> mark corum has expressed interest in helping. not sure in what ways. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:47:31] <dukebody> vedawms: can you ask him to contact me? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:47:39] <vedawms> dukebody: sure [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:47:43] <dukebody> thanks! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:47:54] <SteveM> vedawms: Talking about 5011? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:48:03] <vedawms> SteveM: correct [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:48:29] <dukebody> Well, regarding https://dev.plone.org/plone/report/31 [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:48:54] <dukebody> We should go over all tickets and assign priorities or similar. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:49:04] <dukebody> Or close them where appropiate. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:49:05] <SteveM> 5011 should probably go away; it's a bit risky. Those who can ssh to plone.org shouldn't need it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:50:03] * aclark can fix that [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:50:12] * aclark would also like to setup manage.plone.org [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:50:26] <dukebody> Let's close the tickets not needed now, and I'll organize the tickets later. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:50:29] * aclark back in a bit [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:50:31] <dukebody> https://dev.plone.org/plone/report/31 [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:50:42] <SteveM> It would probably be a good idea to have the board review the permission/policy/TOS docs. That would give us some timing. The next meeting is Next thurs. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:50:53] <vedawms> dukebody: as soon as coactivate comes back, the list of to-do items should be turned into tickets [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:51:01] <SteveM> aclark: Let's get https going. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:51:12] <SteveM> aclark: We have a wildcard certificate. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:51:16] <dukebody> SteveM: can you close the tickets from above link that are no longer neccessary? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:51:26] <dukebody> vedawms: agreed! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:51:35] <dukebody> I work on this after the meeting, ok? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:52:23] <dukebody> next... [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:52:36] <dukebody> SteveM: are you going to remove the Next/Previous adapter? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:52:39] Join matthewwilkes__ has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:52:45] <dukebody> Which PHC version is plone.org running right now? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:52:49] <SteveM> dukebody: Yep. Next time I update PHC [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:52:58] <SteveM> 3.0b1 or 2 [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:01] <dukebody> or? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:05] Nick dahoste is now known as dahoste|afk. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:19] <SteveM> 3.0b2 [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:21] Nick jluvsu2|away is now known as jluvsu2. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:23] <dukebody> aaaaaah [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:27] <anneb> does that mean we won't have next/previous at all? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:33] <dukebody> nono [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:45] <dukebody> The problem is that the current custom implementation is broken. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:52] <SteveM> anneb: No, we'll go with Plone's native next/prev until it gets fixed to be better. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:52] <anneb> Ah cool [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:53:58] <dukebody> https://dev.plone.org/old/plone/ticket/9924 [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:54:10] <anneb> Ah yes, I remember from using PHC myself ages ago [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:54:18] <anneb> Great thanks! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:54:25] <SteveM> N/P tried to do a fancy next/prev that would know about manual section. Too smart ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:55:26] <dukebody> What about docs licensing? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:55:31] <dukebody> I mean, CC and all this stuff. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:55:36] <anneb> Plone's native next/prev will be fine [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:55:44] <dukebody> We have been looking at this for ages already. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:55:50] <SteveM> dukebody: Jon's working on the TOS which will cover that. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:56:00] <dukebody> When will them be ready?? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:56:08] <SteveM> dukebody: He's sent it to the foundation membership for review. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:56:19] <SteveM> dukebody: We'll aim for the next board meeting. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:56:32] <dukebody> What's the current proposal? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:57:05] <SteveM> dukebody: It's a modified version of the WordPress TOS, using CC-BY-NC [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:58:04] <dukebody> thanks! [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:58:29] <dukebody> So, core docs workflow... [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:58:50] <anneb> That's on coactivate? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:59:07] <dukebody> JoAnna prepared a workflow chart a while ago. [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:59:12] <vedawms> jluvsu2: had something written up [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:59:25] <anneb> I remember looking at it and wondering if it was a bit overly complicated for the core? [Friday 11 December 2009] [18:59:49] <dukebody> I don't know. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:00:03] <dukebody> Perhaps we should just let people play in the kb and then pick stuff from there. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:00:05] <SteveM> coredocs workflow should just be plone standard, with the editors having edit/review rights throughout [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:00:06] <dukebody> Copy-paste. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:00:21] Quit matthewwilkes_ has left this server (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:00:39] <dukebody> SteveM: so everyone can create items but they must be reviewed, right? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:01:11] <SteveM> dukebody: Only editors will be able to create in manuals section. Everyone in kb [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:01:38] <anneb> I think the plone standard makes sense [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:01:47] <SteveM> We should all know it ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:02:00] <dukebody> SteveM: could we have somethink like working copy support so people would be able to suggest changes directly? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:02:02] <anneb> If we have a small group of contributors to the core docs then the expectations should be higher [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:02:21] <anneb> but I think these expectations should be made a great deal clearer [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:02:25] <SteveM> dukebody: Yes, but let's wait 'til things settle down a bit. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:02:27] <vedawms> i think the workflow that we were talking about had to do with notifications when things were created, not so much about "submit for review", "publish", etc. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:02:57] <vedawms> like, the first time someone submits to kb, they have to get their doc reviewed before they're given publication rights [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:03:04] <dukebody> SteveM: why shouldn't we keep the possibility of people adding pages to the manual and submitting them for review? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:03:34] <dukebody> vedawms: that's likely how it's going to work as far as I've understood. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:03:35] <SteveM> dukebody: Because we only want folks who've signed the contrib agreement playing there. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:03:41] <dukebody> SteveM: ok. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:03:54] <vedawms> dukebody: right, and we can still pick on likely suspects from contributors in the kb [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:04:05] <SteveM> dukebody: KB is the playground for everyone else. If we want to move something to manuals, we'll have to ask the author to sign the contrib agreement. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:04:15] <ErikRose> The working copy support idea is a great one. Our wiki gets a lot more changes and corrections than new pages from outsiders. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:04:18] <vedawms> if there's something of value, we pull them into working on the manual and give appropriate rights then [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:04:42] <dukebody> SteveM: this looks a bit awkward to me. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:04:57] <ErikRose> We need to make sure contributing corrections is easy. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:06] <cbess> i concur [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:07] <dukebody> If I see something really good in the KB I would like to be able to add it to the core docs directly. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:07] <ErikRose> No mailing papers around. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:12] <SteveM> dukebody: It is awkward, but it's an awkwardness we're used to, modeled on the core/collective distinction. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:24] <dukebody> If I have to ask the author to send a signed paper... [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:43] <cbess> has "wiki" docs ever been proposed? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:43] <dukebody> It will get really slow, you know. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:50] <SteveM> dukebody: Otherwise, we don't have licensing control. This is just like with Plone. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:05:51] <dukebody> cbess: yes :P [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:00] <ErikRose> Heh, http://weblion.psu.edu/wiki. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:02] <cbess> dukebody: i guessing that didn't work out [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:16] <dukebody> so the core docs are going to be copyrighted by the foundation, right? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:16] <cbess> ErikRose: interesting [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:26] <anneb> cbess: I think the KB is the closest we're getting to a Wiki [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:33] <ErikRose> Our WikiWorksWell. Admitedly, our licensing is totally undefined. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:43] <SteveM> dukebody: Non-exclusively, yes. Just as with Plone. That's the only way to control licensing. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:06:51] <dukebody> ok [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:07:10] <dukebody> I can't do anything but accept it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:07:12] <SteveM> dukebody: Otherwise, we'd be vulnerable to suits or requests to withdraw documents. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:07:21] <anneb> I get the feeling we need to have a clear definitiion of what the core really is [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:07:25] <ErikRose> In practice, we have had 0 of those. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:07:35] <cbess> anneb: maybe if the KB had "wiki" features it would help [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:07:50] <dukebody> cbess: which wiki features? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:07:54] <SteveM> The point is that the KW will basically be a wiki. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:04] <SteveM> Though without wiki link semantics. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:07] <cbess> anneb: as in users could see the canonical version, then make "comments" or "edits" to a separate version [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:18] <anneb> cbess: lets take it slowly :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:26] <cbess> anneb: :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:33] <cbess> anneb: django has something similar [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:41] <cbess> anneb: they allow you to annotate text [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:47] <cbess> django docs [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:49] <SteveM> The KB will have agile rules: if something's wrong, fix it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:49] <anneb> cbess: it's taken a while to get where we are now [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:08:57] <cbess> anneb: understood [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:09:05] <cbess> SteveM: :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:09:49] <dukebody> Ok, something I'd like to cover is section editors. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:10:00] <dukebody> http://plone.org/documentation/kb/documentation-team-editors [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:10:12] <SteveM> aclark: I think we need to run a recatalog on Plone.org. We've got all sorts of little gotchas (nothing new). [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:10:42] <vedawms> dukebody: seems like the main owner of a manual could do whatever they want, pull in whoever they want and instruct them as needed. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:10:46] <dukebody> According to the previous link, we have only 4 editors, and sections w/o any editors at all. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:10:58] <vedawms> that's sort of how anne and i work [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:11:03] <dukebody> Did we talk about the "manual owner" role? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:11:19] <dukebody> I don't know if we should drop the editors per section scheme. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:11:56] <dukebody> And move to editors per manual, if you think it's ok. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:12:09] <anneb> dukebody: that makes sense [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:12:09] <dukebody> Or even per manual section. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:12:16] <vedawms> i think that makes sense. it's really just splitting hairs in some ways. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:12:18] <dukebody> Even if there's nobody covering them... [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:12:33] <dukebody> Currently there are sections without any editor. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:08] <anneb> dukebody: perhaps we should prioritize the manuals/sections? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:09] <dukebody> ok [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:19] <dukebody> prioritize between them?? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:36] <vedawms> e.g. the developer manual is the most critical [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:42] <dukebody> right now [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:51] <dukebody> it's half-broken [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:58] <anneb> dukebody: because we're restricted with resources [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:13:58] <dukebody> I'm going to work on it. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:14:05] <dukebody> I know, I know. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:14:32] <dukebody> But we will manage to sort it out. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:14:32] <vedawms> and you have people who want to help... but if there are things we can do to assist, like take half of a section assessment and move things into the manual, we can do that [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:14:41] <dukebody> perfect! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:14:41] <vedawms> the point of the assessments is that monkeys could act on them [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:14:56] <dukebody> I'll ask for volunteers. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:15:10] <dukebody> cbess has already volunteered to work with me on dev documentation. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:15:18] <cbess> dukebody: truth [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:15:19] <vedawms> as has dylan jay and mikko [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:15:23] <dukebody> perfect [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:15:29] <vedawms> if you guys can split the assessment up, you could knock it out in a day [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:15:40] <dukebody> I need to sleep first. :D [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:16:11] <dukebody> Ok, editors roles agreed upon. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:16:34] <dukebody> anything else before moving to plone 4 documentation? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:16:44] <anneb> yeah [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:16:57] <anneb> I just wonder if we could somewhere create a definition / vision [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:17:04] <anneb> of what we think the core docs should be [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:17:18] <anneb> that way we can be sure we're all singing on the same hymn sheet as it were [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:17:56] <dukebody> To be honest I'm not sure about what I want them to be. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:18:07] <dukebody> But I want them to be up2date with Plone releases, and precise. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:18:15] <dukebody> Correct. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:18:16] <cbess> agreed [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:18:32] <anneb> I want them to be consistent [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:18:36] <dukebody> Too. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:18:38] <vedawms> and the structure is still very loose.... do we put practicals (tutorials) in the appendix? do we put them inside the manual in a place where they make sense? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:18:59] <ErikRose> You'll never get a strict monohierarchy. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:01] <vedawms> one thing i'm worried about also is the new home page UI is set up so that the major sections of a manual are listed out [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:06] <vedawms> and that means we can't have too many sections [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:07] <dukebody> vedawms: I would prefer to put them inside the manual, but it's a matter of taste. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:13] <ErikRose> Graph-shaped link structures are a Good Thing. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:22] <vedawms> dukebody: i agree... [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:35] <vedawms> for the short term (until things shake out), i'd be ok with them in an appendix [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:41] <dukebody> also, merging the practicals inside the manual needs time [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:51] <dukebody> vedawms: I totally agree. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:53] <vedawms> yep [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:54] <anneb> Shall I draft something somewhere? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:19:58] <dukebody> anneb: yeah! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:20:00] <dukebody> please [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:20:02] <anneb> Sort of stating what the aims are [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:20:06] <vedawms> anneb: awesome [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:20:11] <anneb> I'll try to pick up on what people have said. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:20:34] <anneb> I'm drinking a glass of wine now, so this may or may not be a good time :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:20:41] <cbess> heh [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:20:50] <dukebody> If it's only one glass. :P [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:21:03] <cbess> may be a big glass [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:21:14] <dukebody> Well, last thing if I'm not wrong. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:21:19] <dukebody> Plone 4 documentation. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:21:27] <vedawms> hey all: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:FUq1W_setc8J:www.coactivate.org/projects/plone-documentation/phc-migration+plone+documentation+PHC+migration&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:21:50] <cbess> vedawms: nice find [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:21:56] <vedawms> thank davisagli :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:21:59] <dukebody> I've personally not done almost anything with P4 PLIPs documentation. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:07] <vedawms> i don't think anyone has [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:15] <vedawms> it wasn't the priority [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:16] <dukebody> I poked some devs but that's all. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:20] <dukebody> vedawms: right. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:22] Join davisagli has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:28] <dukebody> davisagli: ! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:34] <davisagli> hey dukebody! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:35] <ErikRose> Fortunately, not much has changed. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:40] <vedawms> i know that joanna created a skeleton plone 4 user manual, but it looked much the same as the existing one [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:57] <esteele> That's probably not a bad place to start though. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:22:57] <vedawms> and we haven't talked about how we handle different versions -- creating new manuals for every version is onerous [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:06] <anneb> I'd much rather not create new manuals [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:10] <vedawms> me either [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:17] <esteele> Plone 4 is very much going to be Plone 3 + some changes. Not like 2.5/3.0 [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:20] <SteveM> I'm not sure at all that p4 should need a new users manual. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:23] <SteveM> Right! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:25] <ErikRose> This stuff just screams out for a proper concurrent CVS. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:29] <ErikRose> VCS, even [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:37] <davisagli> I would really like to see new manuals for each major version, if there's any way we can swing it [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:51] <vedawms> davisagli: you volunteering? :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:23:51] <anneb> aagghh [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:01] <dukebody> Come on, Plone is a CMS, we should be able to manage different versions of a document... [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:01] <anneb> I just don't think we're there yet [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:06] <ErikRose> Or even a content management system ;-) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:08] <davisagli> vedawms: I'd be willing to brainstorm how to make it easier from a management standpoint [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:13] <cbess> dukebody: iterator? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:13] <dukebody> http://plone.org/documentation/ndocs [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:14] <vedawms> and use callouts and whatnot to indicate differences... [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:23] <dukebody> " [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:23] <dukebody> End-user manual for Plone 3 [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:23] <dukebody> Looking for older versions of the manual? Plone 2.5 version [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:24] <dukebody> " [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:42] <anneb> We just need to get the documentation written first [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:44] <vedawms> the UI is almost in place? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:50] <anneb> then we can start versioning it out [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:52] <dukebody> vedawms: this can become an overkill for some changes. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:24:54] <davisagli> anneb: agreed [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:25:32] <dukebody> Imagine you're using P5 and you have to read dozens of callouts... [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:25:50] <vedawms> looking at this ndocs link... i wanted to point out we'll also have to beef up the descriptions for the sections so they don't look so gap-toothed. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:26:08] <vedawms> dukebody: if we can find a solution that works, i'm cool with that. it doesn't have to be callouts. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:26:23] <dukebody> I'd personally like to be able to branch a document for different plone versions wherever I want. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:26:34] <cbess> dukebody: agreed [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:26:42] <dukebody> if a callout is enough, then we use a callout and mark the document as valid for P4. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:26:45] <cbess> dukebody: or even to create a new rough draft [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:27:02] <dukebody> If it isn't, we create a different version valid for P4, so we will have one for P3 and one for P4. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:27:18] <dukebody> It's like having different translations. :D [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:27:33] <dukebody> The technology should be similar, I guess. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:27:40] <anneb> I think one of the key things is to make it clear visually [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:27:40] <ErikRose> I think the P4 diffs are few enough that callouts for P3 diffs could suffice. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:27:51] <anneb> or semantically [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:28:10] <dukebody> ErikRose: perhaps, or perhaps not. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:28:16] <esteele> Keep in mind that those may diverge even more as 4.x releases show up. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:28:25] <ErikRose> Yes, that's likely. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:28:27] <esteele> Will, rather. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:28:42] <dukebody> That's why I'd like to have the possibility of creating new branches for new Plone versions. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:28:58] <anneb> At the moment when you're actually on a page it isn't clear which version you're dealing with [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:29:02] <dukebody> SteveM: ^^ could we have different versions of the same doc for different Plone versions in a future? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:29:31] <anneb> Could we deal with this as a project [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:29:36] <SteveM> dukebody: Maybe. But my mind is spinning already ... Maybe that should wait. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:29:50] <anneb> Use Plone 4 as the testing ground [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:29:55] <dukebody> yeah, I see it as a future project [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:29:56] <anneb> to get a sense of what we need [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:30:07] Join ErikRose_ has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:30:28] Quit ErikRose has left this server (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:30:41] <dukebody> vedawms, SteveM: can you make sure the new design shows clearly which Plone versions is a certain document valid for? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:30:59] <vedawms> dukebody: yes, there's supposed to be a dropdown list [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:31:10] <dukebody> ok, just make sure :D [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:31:11] <vedawms> to filter out other versions [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:31:40] <dukebody> perfect [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:32:43] <dukebody> so what are the plans to work on p4 docs? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:32:56] <anneb> Christmas [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:32:59] <dukebody> who should work on them and when? :P [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:33:22] <dukebody> who? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:33:33] <esteele> Earliest we'll see a final is late Feb. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:33:43] <esteele> Betas will be out in January. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:33:47] <dukebody> well, I'll be nagging the plip implementers to help us with the docs [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:34:06] <esteele> Can I suggest that the migration docs be top priority? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:34:11] <dukebody> esteele: sure! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:34:57] <dukebody> esteele: I will let you know if I need help asking some plip implementers for help. ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:35:10] <esteele> dukebody: Great. I'm happy to lean on people. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:35:17] <esteele> It's all I do. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:35:17] <dukebody> :D [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:36:02] <dukebody> I'll be responsible of p4 plip tickets, ok? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:36:09] <esteele> Sure. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:36:37] <dukebody> perfect! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:36:40] Quit ErikRose_ has left this server (Remote closed the connection). [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:36:45] <dukebody> Anything else we should address? [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:36:52] <esteele> That's all I have. I just wanted to make sure people were thinking about it. ;) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:37:05] <esteele> I know you all have way too much to do as it is. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:37:36] <dukebody> We'll look for help, for sure. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:37:56] <dukebody> There's people out there willing to help if we know how to ask them. :D [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:38:32] Join ErikRose has joined this channel ([email protected]). [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:39:09] <dukebody> Ok, that's all for today folks! I'll send an email soon to plone-docs summaryzing the meeting. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:39:21] <esteele> Thanks! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:39:24] <vedawms> great, dukebody. thanks! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:39:25] <dukebody> And create trac tickets for everybody. [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:39:27] <anneb> Thanks v much dukebody [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:39:30] <davisagli> right...I'm too busy to take responsibility for anythnig, but if you nag me about some particular topic I probably won't be able to resist being helpful :) [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:39:51] <ErikRose> Thanks, all! [Friday 11 December 2009] [19:41:10] Topic You set the channel topic to "Documentation in transition to new layout, dust will settle soon - in the meantime, report broken docs to http://dev.plone.org/plone, Documentation component".