[oi-dev] OpenIndiana Docs - updated

[Jim Klimov]

16 мая 2016 г. 8:43:49 CEST, Nikola M <minikola at gmail.com> пишет:
>On 05/16/16 05:58 AM, Michael Kruger wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Reporting my progress so nobody gets the idea this little technology 
>> demonstration project has been abandoned. Far from it, there has been
>
>> continued development.
>>
>> See it all here: http://makruger.github.io/website/
>
>STOP calling your private site "Openindiana docs" they are not , simply
>
>because you just wrote something on your site and you just say so.
>Working on things alone and then coming up with aspiration to turn 
>around everything is not friendly behavior to Openindiana and it's 
>community.
>
>Posting any "guides" and "roles" inside Openindiana without
>consultation 
>of others and wider audience is simply arrogant and destructive to 
>Openindiana and that represents TROLLING of Openindiana.
>
>Anyone wanting to make OI a prison for "roles" and "policies" in 
>privately handled conspiration-like consultations behind closed doors
>is 
>doing things against OI's and OI's users personal freedoms.
>
>You are not going to single-handed destroy positive community process 
>with the reviews, good intention to everyone, without isolationist 
>policies, freedom of contribution and a good will in general.
>You are not allowed to police Openindiana contribution process.
>
>You are told we have a Wiki for new articles to go through, that does 
>not require any additional tasks nor requirements for contributor.
>You ignored ALL availble suggestions and also you refused to accept 
>Opensolaris Docs PDL license that you need to accept before working on 
>them.
>Your articles atre NOT "Docs" but your writings that is not by any mean
>
>connected to Openindiana.
>
>Anything else but writing your articles (that need to be checked
>anyway) 
>, that you "prescribe" about "organising" is trolling of OI.
>Since you are doing things in not-community way, also your "site"
>things 
>are void.
>
>> This weekend the contribution page was reworked with a slightly 
>> modified layout and several new buttons:
>>
>> * Style Guide
>> * GitHub (link to my repo, so you can fork it)
>> * Site build
>> * Site Theming
>> * Site Publishing
>>
>> Renamed the workflow page to 'process' and expanded it out.
>
>Frak your "process".
>
>> And to top it all off, I shamelessly stole the favicon from the OI
>WIKI.
>
>You shamelessly stole Openindiana brand name for your site and as I 
>already explained you are not by any means representing Openindiana
>docs 
>and you should stop with this nonsense.
>If you want to write articles, fine,
>Not ANY part of your site will end up on Openindiana.org site, ever 
>because of your arrogance till now on this matters.
>For your texts, follow procedure with having your article redacted on
>OI 
>Wiki, if you have any sense of community-based contribution in mind and
>
>not just trolling us..
>
>> Still need to work on adding content to the site build pages, etc., 
>> but in the meantime, you can 
>
>Frak off from OI site.
>
>> look at my blog which provides some details how to install and build 
>> an Awestruct based website from scratch:
>>
>
>Repeate first prescription X2 a day again to frak off from OI site.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>oi-dev mailing list
>oi-dev at openindiana.org
>http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

Nikola, that was very shameful for me even to read, especially with your good record on helping organize and test OI development in other areas.

>From my reading, Michael PoC'ed a new approach to how OI documentation can move forward. He did it with knowledge and cooperation of at least some team members (whatever the definition of team applies to our distributed development).

Whether this approach (technical and methodological) is picked to be the next iteration of OI docs or not, it is no reason to pour dirt on it for non-technical reasons (and even then - critique should be constructive). IMHO it has its merits both organizational (for our git-based distributed team) and technical (I like asciidoc markup). Just like we have github-based oi-userland and illumos-gate and other repos, we can have github-based docs compilable into books, why not. Nothing precludes us from having an auto-copy hosted on OI resources. Following IRC discussion, I'd reiterate that having it the other way around (hosting THE daily development on OI resources) is not practical nowadays, albeit possible. Hosting a copy however is reasonable, if only to have a replication point to migrate from github if it kicks the bit-bucket or acts up otherwise.

In your defense, perhaps it makes sense to mark Michael's pages visibly as a draft/experiment/poc/etc. of a possible future of OI docs and not the official resource at this moment, so readers of the preview pages are not confused.

Hope this helps,
Jim Klimov
--
Typos courtesy of K-9 Mail on my Samsung Android