How to submission

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 02:06 -0700, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
> (http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=fedora-docs-writing)
> > .
> > 
> > Do i have check this  tutorial into CVS  and run a
> > make command or 
> > something  ?or editor will do it ? or I simply wait
> > now for review 
> > process  ?
> > 
> > I hope I am going ok ... pl correct me If I am wrong
> > 
> 
> the general trend is to supply both the html and
> docbook xml documents as online links and revise your
> documents based on peer feedback here before
> submitting to the document to bugzilla. If you are
> interested in feedback (you should be :-) then this
> process might be a good idea

Good point, Rahul.  A couple of issues for different persons follow.
Hopefully this doesn't come off as too didactic.

* Karsten,

What Rahul suggests is indeed how many people have solicited peer input,
by using fedora-docs-list.  Charles' hardening guide comes to mind as
well.  Do you think this process merits inclusion in the Quick Start
Guide?  I suppose it's possible someone could show up with a document
that requires no peer review on this list, but how often will that
happen?  (And who in this environment is ever opposed to peer review,
anyway?)

* Gaurav,

Please do a self-introduction to this list, as described in:
  http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/SelfIntroduction

I am going to take a SWAG that English is a second language for you. I
am guessing this only based on a couple syntactical clues and your email
address, so if I'm wrong, please accept my apologies. :-)  We are happy
to have any contributions, whether from native English speakers or
otherwise.

I think it would be great if all tutorials arrived at the project in
complete sentences and following good compositional guidelines, but this
is not always possible.  However, the list has discussed before the
problem of documents "thrown over the wall," so to speak.  We generally
would ask for documents to reach a certain, albeit ill-defined, state
before the FDP takes them on officially.  (See, for example, the self-
introduction process described above.)  Some documents, although full of
useful information, can benefit from additional work by one or more
writers before moving to the editorial stage.  I think this tutorial is
one of them.  The job of "fleshing out" a document into well-formed
narrative language falls pretty squarely with the writer(s), rather than
the editor(s).  

I would suggest that, before this tutorial gets to "official" editorial,
you ask the list for volunteers to help spruce up the narrative.  This
is a great way for new writers to participate in a group project,
hopefully with one or more experienced writers.  For experienced
writers, you get the benefit of passing on your knowledge while guiding
new writers.  New writers can learn the ropes and earn some stripes.
Keep in mind it can eventually be a glamorous job -- as glamorous as
Fedora docs work gets! -- since someone who contributes significantly to
that effort should be able to take an additional author credit.  ("Your
name in lights!  [Chicks|Guys] dig it!")  

If you're happy with that idea, then take this suggestion and run with
it.  I will leave it up to you to poll the list for assistance, it's
your baby!  Good luck and best wishes.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20050404/15b6b198/attachment.bin