Re: 11 Dec 2009 Meeting - chat log and etherpad document

I¹d also like to point out this, which you unfortunately weren¹t able to get
to when the meeting started.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:FUq1W_setc8J:www.coactivate.org/project
s/plone-documentation/phc-migration+plone+documentation+PHC+migration&cd=1&h
l=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It will be found at
http://www.coactivate.org/projects/plone-documentation/phc-migration if
coactivate ever comes back.


On 12/11/09 10:59 AM, "Israel Saeta Pérez" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> 
> All editors should sign and file a contributors agreement.
> What has been done
> 
> * Migrate to latest PHC version (3.0b1 or 3.0b2)
> 
> * Knowledgebase (KB) created : http://plone.org/documentation/kb/
> 
> * Manuals and tutorials and howtos moved around both sections
> 
> * Some manuals were aggregated - manuals now form the 'core' documentation
> 
> * Based on the reviews of docs a while ago (check
> http://www.coactivate.org/projects/plone-documentation/project-home, now it's
> down) we made a start on cutting and pasting how-tos and tutorials into the
> manuals
> 
> 
> 
> KB/Manuals: permissions and policies
> 
> * 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.
> 
> * (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.)
> 
> * Application to join doc collective will be either by:
> 
> * adding a new doc
> 
> * posting a ticket to request membership
> 
> * Manual editors will be successors to editors. A much more tightly watched
> list, modeled on core dev. Signing a contributors agreement will be required.
> 
> * Application to become a core document editor will be by filing contrib
> agreement, then filing a ticket.
> 
> * Author in manual section will be "Plone Documentation Team" < not individual
> who created doc. Credits via contributors.
> 
> SteveM <javascript:;> will implement workflow for manuals as soon as possible;
> there's no reason to wait to restrict that.
> What is left to do
> 
> * Organize docs structure correctly (see developer manual).
> 
> * Make a list of broken stuff and provide redirections where neccessary (Most
> Developer Manual links are broken:
> http://plone.org/documentation/manual/developer-manual/ ) /manage-aliases
> (much of this wound up in the core developer manual by accident, just cut and
> paste it to the developer manual)
> 
> * Licensing of both sections - It's a modified version of the WordPress
> <javascript:;> TOS, using CC-BY-NC <javascript:;>
> 
> * When is the new UI going to be rolled in? Steve will ask Limi.
> 
> * http://dev.plone.org/plone/report/31 - list of "PHC Upgrade" tagged tickets.
> 
> * https://dev.plone.org/old/plone/ticket/9924 - Next/Previous buttons point to
> the wrong page in some manuals - Steve will remove it until we find a correct
> implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> Discuss any other decisions that need to be made
> 
> * Core (officially endorsed) docs workflow proposal:
> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19294323/Plone-Core-Docs-workflow. 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 URLs
> <javascript:;> 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.
> 
> * Editors team. Renewal? Do we drop editor role?
> http://plone.org/documentation/kb/documentation-team-editors - drop editors
> per section scheme and move to an editors per manual one.
> 
> 
> Volunteering / people going to do something
> 
> * cbess - want to contribute development core documentation
> 
> * dukebody, ErikRose <javascript:;>  - organize developers manual structure
> and provide redirections from old manuals and howtos to here.
> 
> * dylan jay & mikko: assist w/ developer manual
> 
> * Jon Stahl, (SteveM <javascript:;> ) - write a document about kb/manuals
> policies.
> 
> * veda, dukebody anneb - cut and paste if i have time, contact mark corum to
> connect w/ israel, create tickets based on notes on coactivate
> 
> * johnstahl - contribution agreements and documentation licensing sent to the
> Plone Foundation board.
> 
> * anneb - doc about what do we want the core docs (manuals) section to be
> 
> * veda - make sure the version a certain document applies to is clearly shown
> in the new UI
> 
> * dukebody - Plone 4 documentation
> 
> * mark corum?
> 
> 
> 
> The Redirection Problem (as interpreted by anneb)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Of course, we didn't think through the implications of automatic redirection
> not working.
> 
> 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.
> 
> OK, I'll try to find some time - shouldn't be too difficult. Bless your heart
> a second time. :-)
> Future stuff
> 
> * Move away from coactivate.org - it's no longer necessary.
> 
> * Style guide and terminology conventions for manuals.
> 
> * Working copy support for core docs.
> 
> * Support for different versions of a doc for different Plone versions.
> 
> 
> 
> Plone 4 Documentation
> Sprint @ Six-Feet <javascript:;>  Up? I'm assuming it's dead in the water.
> PLIP documentation progressing?
> Migration docs top priority!
> Review new themes and adjust manual to incorporate changes in Plone 4
> Rules based theming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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 (n=user-MvOSzfuurTki8k4vL7GcQOP9t1JqtFocRH6IhTjp5N2bEdiDqMV1yw@public.gmane.org). [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
> (n=aclark-apN8lm7Ivy69YADbfLtJ+9I5Hzy5Kylu4JLtOMiBWf9Wk0Htik3J/[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
> (n=shrikant-cT+CCcsDb/86/[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 timeâ?¦ [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 (n=r0ver-tcsIqmAxfe4j4ka3GgeQofKQQXZ8VBLEmGg7BlhB5rA@public.gmane.org). [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
> (n=mattheww-0LjcJZC8DPQ/UJGwb4OGawPFP7/[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
> (n=mattheww-0LjcJZC8DPQ/UJGwb4OGawPFP7/[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 
> (n=grinch-1TZSCUyvWa8+iIX+fvF7tE+9wipj/[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 (n=grinch-1TZSCUyvWa8+iIX+fvF7tE+9wipj/[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".
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


--
Veda Williams
Web Developer
Groundwire
206.286.1235x23
[email protected]
http://groundwire.org

ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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