Re: [Arianne-general] my wiki suggestions...

[Euan M. <lu...@co...>]

On 27 Oct 2002, at 19:14, Keith C. wrote:
> Earlier, Mike Higginbottom  wrote:
>> How about letting people make changes as they want but
>> keeping the original in place as well.  If they sign their comments with
>> their name then the doc team can consult them and the original author
>> before incorporating any significant changes. 
> 
> Good call.  I whole heartedly and completely second this but I can't think of a feasible way
> to manage it. 

> When someone makes a modification, should they mark it as such and then someone
> reviews it later to "commit" it to the page?  It would be a non-rigorous cvs that could quickly
> turn into a mess...  

There are basically two, actually make that three (no-one expects 
the Spanish Inquisition!) types of page.

Someone making a statement.

A debate on a subject.

Authoring a document collaboratively, in a series of gradual 
refinements.

We seem to be establishing a fairly common practice across all 
cases.

First I'll describe what I think is the de facto process we're using.
Then I'll describe how I think the process ought to be.

As I see it, the wiki is a useful stepping stone between the here-
and-it's-gone discussion of issues on a mailing-list, and the written-
in-stone nature of documents published via the web-site.

It has fairly high persistence and is still very easily changed.

So... for things folk just want to say, then they can say it via the 
Wiki, without any problem already.

For debates, people should sign their paragraphs.

For documents being worked on collabratively, there should be a 
current draft, and a <CurrentDraftOfTheDocument>Comments page.

All comments should be made on the <document>Comments 
page, and signed.

There should be a person appointed as TaskCoordinator for the 
'write this document' task - and they will fold the comments from 
the <document>Comments page onto the draft document's wiki 
page.

Eventually, all the uncontroversial comments will be included, and 
the TaskCoordinator and or the relevant TeamLeader(s) / 
ProjectLeader will take a decision wherever there are multiple 
opposing viewpoints on what goes into tthe document.

Once the document is stable, it should get frozen, and put onto  
the web-site.

Btw, I suggest TaskCoordinators get their role either by accepting 
a request from 'on-high' that s/he become Task Coordinator, or by 
asking the powers-that-be to be TaskCoordinator, and having it 
accepted.  As a general rule of thumb no competent volunteer will 
be refused.  The volunteer-and accept process is really to ensure 
that there is an agreed state of affairs which can then be 
communicated in a no-conflicting-viewpoints way to the rest of the 
team.

> On the comments/questions pages though, when/if you add something,
> ALWAYS add your username > (which will automatically link 
> back to your info page). 

Absolutely, yes.


Cheers,
    Euan
xlucid@users(.remove this).sf.(antispam.)net