Re: Decommissioning of the Documentation project?

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--4gEMRBdUXxEHuBWjXdbdHGrOuejU2N0wv
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0hwBdHJPwnmSTrv5RP7AiFgWgWxsMQPu9"
From: Matthew Marchese <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] Decommissioning of the Documentation project?
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

--0hwBdHJPwnmSTrv5RP7AiFgWgWxsMQPu9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 06/14/2016 09:32 AM, Nathan Zachary wrote:

> On 14/06/16 11:31, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> With the Gentoo Wiki being the sole handler of all end user (and often=
 also
>> development, although the Devmanual is a separate aspect but not under=

>> Documentation project anyway) we had a small talk on #gentoo-doc if th=
ere
>> was still a need to have the documentation project as an active projec=
t.
>>
>> Because, you know, we're not active (beyond the wiki, which is doing g=
reat
>> btw).
>>
>> I've been looking at what the project would still mean for Gentoo righ=
t now,
>> and if that would be sufficient to keep it alive. We
>> - have some documentation development guidelines as part of the
>>   Project:Documentation umbrella (but which can be moved if needed)
>> - the translation subproject underneath (but again only with a guideli=
ne for
>>   translations)
>>
>> And that's basically not much, and a good reflection of how things evo=
lved
>> in the past few years. Just keeping it in limbo doesn't serve us well.=
 It's
>> a somewhat empty project, with its deliverables being implemented else=
where.
>> So it's definitely not a failure, on the contrary. It's finished.
>>
>> So personally, I wouldn't mind that we move whatever is still needed t=
o the
>> right location (Project:Wiki most likely) and clean up (or archive if
>> needed) the rest.
>>
>> But I'm also all ears for people who have some neat and innovative ide=
as to
>> do through the documentation project! So, what's your take on this?
>>
>> Wkr,
>> 	Sven Vermeulen
>>
> I would tend to agree.  Anything that needs to be moved to the wiki can=

> be, but otherwise, having a separate repository for documentation seems=

> dated.
>
> Cheers,
> Nathan Zachary
>
Although I have not been part of the docs project long (only just over a
year) I do not see a need for two separate projects. As SwifT and I
discussed on the IRC in the channel, I think the docs project really has
no reason to be separate from the wiki. Since the wiki is the main
hosting platform for hosting documentation all doc development is
completed through that vessel.

Not to mention I haven't see any 'new' documentation written by anyone
on the docs team since I joined. No offense. :P

Kind regards,
Blast the maffer


--0hwBdHJPwnmSTrv5RP7AiFgWgWxsMQPu9--

--4gEMRBdUXxEHuBWjXdbdHGrOuejU2N0wv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=29lX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4gEMRBdUXxEHuBWjXdbdHGrOuejU2N0wv--