[oi-dev] OpenIndiana Docs - updated

[Michael Kruger]

On 05/16/2016 02:43 AM, Nikola M wrote:

>
> 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.

Nikolam,

My identification and specification of contributor roles is purely for 
the sake of organization. It is not meant to limit anyone's personal 
freedoms.

Identifying roles helps contributors better understand the different 
ways in which someone can contribute. For example, most people may wish 
to limit their activities to the role of content creator (author). They 
may not be interested in performing tasks associated with the role of 
'website developer' (one who extents the capabilities of the site), nor 
tasks associate with the role of 'content reviewer' (one who reviews 
pull requests).

All these roles are necessary for the site to succeed. Think of them 
simply as organizational definitions to help guide the documentation effort.

>
> 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.


If documentation resides in a GitHub repository, then someone has to 
review the pull requests. It does not necessarily have to be me 
performing this role, although I am the most likely candidate....unless 
someone else wishes to do it.

While on the subject of content review, the lack of such review is 
unfortunately one of the shortcomings of the OI Wiki.

Personal freedoms should not equal chaos.

What I mean is....for a user guide to be useful and considered credible, 
there needs to be a methodical consistency in how content is written, 
styled, and organized. A project leader (or in this case, a content 
reviewer) is a required element of the process.

After all, people do not submit source code to the mainline branch 
without at least some degree of review.

Why should documentation be any different?

In fact, the FreeBSD project has a review process. The OpenSolaris 
Project had one too. What prohibits the OpenIndiana project from 
adopting such a process as well?

In summary, lack of organizational process = chaos, and chaos is 
unlikely to ever result in FreeBSD quality systems documentation.


> You ignored ALL availble suggestions and also you refused to accept
> Opensolaris Docs PDL license that you need to accept before working on
> them.

I don't understand why you keep mentioning this.

When have I refused to accept the PDL license?

I simply questioned whether the PDL was relevant to new documentation 
and whether new documentation really needed to follow it (or whether 
some other license might be more appropriate).

In regards to the PDL, to whom does one submit a signed contributor 
agreement? And did you (or anyone else) ever sign a contributor 
agreement before you began writing content for the Wiki or anywhere else 
on OpenIndiana.org? Under what license is this content licensed, or is 
it even licensed at all?

If the content is in fact PDL licensed, who manages this process and 
where are these contributor agreements stored?

These are all valid questions.

Michael