Re: RE: Infrastructure needs

On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 10:54, Chih-Chao Lam wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Thank you for a very thoughtful and to-the-point summary. This is exactly
> what I was hoping for, when I suggested a strawman process [1] - but you're
> already leagues ahead of me. [1]:
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/process/2002-November/000022.html
> 
> > Threaded Discussion Space
> > -------------------------
> 
> Very well put pros and cons. From my personal experience, I lean towards an
> NNTP solution with an email gateway. Some extra reasons: in the digest mode,
> there is no way to continue a thread (that I know of), currently doesn't
> seem to be a way to switch between digest and non-digest modes except to
> bother Morgen.

Each mailing list has a subscription page (ex:
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process. Scroll to the
bottom of the page, enter your email address, and click the 'Edit
Options' button. You'll be presented with a subscription settings form,
where you can change your settings, as long as you remember the password
that you chose when you subscribed.

> Perhaps an extra consideration: I think we should plan for the day we are
> going to use Chandler itself to organize such discussions. As such, we
> should come up with a "Chandler discussion" category framework and see how
> it can be applied to both News and Email mesages we will create in the
> future. Also, how should such categories be embedded in the messages?

I discussed this in my reply to your original posting. Briefly: if
Chandler can create views based on the presence of keywords in a
*thread*, then explicit category labeling isn't really necessary.
 
> > Collaborative Authoring Space
> > -----------------------------
> >
> Would like to repeat something Bill Seitz's advocated: Let's release
> something first even if it's not perfect. The need for more communication
> far outweighs the niceties that the perfect authoring space may provide for
> us right now.
> 
> If you buy that, then another consideration is that the chosen Wiki should
> be easily exportable e.g. to other future tools for collaboration, since
> Wiki's are still improving and evolving everyday.

I buy that. There is a wiki interchange format being developed, but
little support exists in current tools:
http://c2.com/w2/wiki/WikiForumWikiInterchangeFormat

> Finally, would be neat if users can subscribe to changes in Wiki pages as
> they occur. For example, do wiki's support RSS syndication?

Some do. Zwiki supports RSS fairly easily through the use of BlogFace
which also creates a weblog (reverse chronological) view:
http://www.zope.org/Members/karl/BlogFace/BlogFace/wikiblog.txt

> > Documentation Space
> > -------------------
> > Besides a collaborative authoring solution, which is good for "what
> > we're going to build" documentation artefacts, we also need
> > infrastructure for "what we built" documentation, such as programmer's
> > API references and end-user manuals and help systems.
> 
> Yes, agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps we need to start creating a list of the
> different forms of documentation. e.g. Product and technical specs, FAQ for
> both developers and end users, etc.
> 
> > Texts such as these are highly structured, and don't lend themselves
> > well to the relatively unstructured nature of a wiki web, at least not
> > without a great deal of 'shepherding'. Exceptions would be short
> > tutorials and how-tos that can easily live on a single page.
>
> OTOH, because there is so much work to do, I would advocate starting with
> simple, "one-size-fits-all" tools until just before things get unwieldy.
> However, we should definitely plan for future doc tools and a migration
> path.

Well, a *list* of the different forms of documentation is a perfect
application of a wiki. :-)

> > Ok, that's it. Have I forgotten some category of infrastructure?
> >
> As we continue to make progress on Chandler, we should think about how
> newcomers get quickly get up to speed. Are there new tools we need or would
> the existing infrastructure suffice?
> 
> Finally, perhaps a discussion to arrive at a timeline of what needs to be
> done when should help drive things forward?

From comments made by others and my own experience, lot's of folks are
waiting for a wiki before they start brain-dumping.

Thus, the short term timeline is: 

1) choose a wiki
2) install the wiki
3) announce the wiki
4) ???
5) Profit!

:-)

How (and if) we proceed with an NNTP server solution depends largely on
whether I've made a convincing enough case to Mitch and others on the
importance of the NNTP server being the *primary* forum for discussion.

> Thanks again for your wonderful summary. I've enjoyed reading your postings
> over the last few weeks, especially the ones gently & politely prodding
> Mitch towards more openness.

Well, gee. And I thought I was being subtle.  :-)

You're welcome, and thank you for your own very interesting
contributions.

Sincerely,

Michael Bernstein. 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process