Re: Tech Docs and Consultants - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | Ewald Geschwinde |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Tech Docs and Consultants |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3E9ADDD2.8050606@geschwinde.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Tech Docs and Consultants (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
List | pgsql-advocacy |
I read this discussion I think this is a long term process to get it done. Why not developing a new portal structure for this? the postgresql.org is newly developed. I think there is a new project on gborg which does the further development. I don't want to reinvent the wheel but if the community has a portal software based on postgresql this will help getting this discussion to an end and ther is a CMS for postgresql that can be used. only some thoughts Ewald Geschwinde Josh Berkus wrote: >Greg, > > > >>Call me a traditionalist, but how about the traditional cvs + "your >>favorite editor" approach? I don't think the techdocs section changes so >>often that we need fancy wiki / edit-from-the-web-on-the-fly sort of >>technology here. I also agree with Marc that there is no need to move it >>elsewhere right now. Let's just keep it simple, focus on the content, and >>add other things later. >> >> > >Simple: Because people aren't contributing content because it's too much >work, both for the contributor and the TechDocs site administrator. > >1) The majority of contributors to a Techdocs-style system will not have CVS >accounts, do not need CVS accounts, and some of them find CVS baffling and >confusing besides. > If someone e-mails you an article and you tell them, "Oh, this is very good, >why don't you sign up for a CVS account, just follow this 14-step guide and >wait 8 days for authorization," do you think that that article will get >posted? > >2) Raw HTML editing of a decent length article takes as long as writing the >article itself, and I have yet to see a WYSWYG HTML editor which produced >output that could be cleanly incorporated into a CSS site framework without >extensive hand-tweaking. > The result of this is one of 3 things: > a) Some writers (like me) only contribute 1/2 as many articles because we >spend too much time tweaking our HTML. > b) Some writers contribute their articles to the admin as plain text, then >forcing the admin to spend 10 hours per week formatting articles for posting. > c) Some writers get discouraged by the long delay in posting, and give up on >contributing. > >3) Except for the Guides pages, the tech for which is unfinished, the >structure of Techdocs does not allow multi-user collaboration or comments. > >I *am* focusing on content, Greg. I want the focus of TechDocs to be >content, and for the technology (including CVS and HTML markup) to be >virtually invisible and take care of itself. The ONLY way to maximize >contributions is to make them as easy as possible to make. > >Lord-on-a-pogo-stick, no wonder MySQL AB is beating our pants off in >community-building. MySQL.com doesn't require that a user have Stunnel, CVS, >and intermediate HTML skills before they can contribute even a paragraph to >the site! Justin has been trying to change this, and I want to finish that >change. > >BTW, all of the above really goes for the advocacy site as well, except the >part about comments. > > >
pgsql-advocacy by date: