Jargon Buster wikification

[Dimitris Glezos]

O/H Karsten Wade έγραψε:
> On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 17:17 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> 
>> I like the idea of more contributions to the glossary.  It's a worthy
>> goal.  I just wish that, at the same time as we get more contributions,
>> we were also encouraging people to submit the changes in a more
>> automatically trackable way.  That way is Bugzilla.  (I'm reminded that
>> random people can't contribute to our wiki -- they have to go through a
>> series of steps (you've done them, of course) including the CLA.)
>>
>> Wiki notifications are a fine way for anyone currently using the wiki to
>> pick up "what needs to be done."  But what about John Newuser, who just
>> joined?  He starts at square one, and even if he has CVS and DocBook
>> skills, and is well-informed enough to turn on all his notifications
>> immediately, he will have no idea what entries need to be moved.  He
>> can't get backdated notifications.
>>
>> Bugzilla is a queue of problems that any motivated contributor can
>> consult for a "to-do" list.  John Newuser can look at the list, pick a
>> problem, and get down to business.  Bug and task tracking tools are the
>> ideal way to capture this work, and produce other useful information
>> like how long it's taking to get them closed or handled.  The wiki
>> satisfies none of those needs, unfortunately.
>>
>> Again, I'm not blasting use of the wiki -- but it's very clear to me
>> that it's not a sustainable and valuable tool in the way that SCM and
>> Bugzilla clearly are.  It's merely good for collecting raw material
>> quickly.
> 
> I've been watching release notes in particular be produced for the last
> three+ years, internally for RHEL, then externally in Fedora.  To be
> honest, bugzilla was always a bit of a barrier that even seasoned
> developers wouldn't overcome unless the error was egregious or the new
> content valuable.  I'd see poor Ed begging for input time after time,
> and only a dozen developers actually put anything in the bug report.
> 
> This is in stark contrast to what we've experienced with the Wiki.  At
> least two to three times the number of developers have helped with
> content and reviews, and it's easier for people to dig their hands in
> and get stuff done.
> 
> What I'm thinking is that bugzilla can work for all levels, but there is
> a granularity level below which input decreases.  For example, more
> reports are filed for technical errors, while translation and
> grammar/spelling errors get few bug reports.

Templates try to fix this, but they fail as you already point out.

Maybe we could have (through Plone) some simple webpage front-ends for bug
reports, which use XML-RPC to communicate with bugzilla? For example, one
webpage titled "Leave a comment" could open special ready-made bug reports for
comments on the Docs -- even anonymously (using a special bugzilla user). Of
course this will apply only bug reports on a spacial component (eg "comment-rfe").

Of course this might overwhelm us with bug reports that need closing and stuff.
But there are 100 times more "I just want to leave a comment guys" than "I am
willing/able to create a Fedora account or complete a template bugzilla report".

> [...]
> Bottom line is this:  if the only way to get a change in e.g. Fedora
> Glossary is to file a bug report, we will receive 1/10th to 1/100th the
> number of fixes and entries than if we put it in the Wiki for editing.
> We have to balance the challenges of Wiki -> XML with the increased
> contributions.

+1. Or jump quickly to a new technology, like the ticketing the Infrastructure
folks did. Which isn't likely to happen because of maintenance reasons.

-d


-- 
Dimitris Glezos
Jabber ID: glezos at jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B
http://dimitris.glezos.com/

"He who gives up functionality for ease of use
loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous)
--