[FM Discuss] FM upstream to Sugar Labs

Thu Jun 26 19:59:52 PDT 2008

Hi again all,

I'm frankly excited to hear Sugar Labs' enthusiasm about doc. It really has
taken a community effort and knowing that doc could see some synergy with
def effort is great.

I have ideas for getting more energy behind some of the separate doc
deliverables we could target, and have already sent out a couple of emails,
especially in pursuit of a Turtle Art "manual" that a Houstonite put
together, and I think she'd be willing to post it on FM.

So, an approach would be similar to what we've done before - when we have a
well-defined task analysis and outline for a manual, we start recruiting
writers for it. If writers volunteer, we can have specifics for them to work
on.

As for tracking doc bugs and requests, I'd love to have doc requests
prioritized just like software bug are prioritized. That approach would let
us figure out how to "staff" the different projects and also would work well
towards a Book Sprint. Adam, I have a writer her in Austin who was just
asking about that on her blog, and maybe we could get her and one other
interested person to write for a burst of time if we have a prioritized set
of docs to work on.

Um, let's see, does that cover the spirit of the questions and approach? I
hope I'm not missing anything or misrepresenting a typical approach.

I'd be happy to coordinate with volunteer writers you send my way - I
already have templatized email responses from OLPC work that I can revise
for those who want to volunteer for OLPC/Sugar docs on FM.

Thanks,
Anne Gentle
e:annegentle at gmail.com <e%3Aannegentle at gmail.com>
b:www.justwriteclick.com

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:11:53 -0500
From: David Farning <dfarning at sugarlabs.org>
Subject: [FM Discuss] FM upstream to Sugar Labs
To: discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
Message-ID: <1214352713.32315.91.camel at dfarning.desktop.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I spent a good part of today thinking about how FM and SL could
collaborate in a way that was beneficial to both of us.

I keep coming back to the upstream/downstream relationship between
software packages.  When I write a program in c, I don't rewrite the
compiler.  I use gcc.  It makes no sense spending the time required to
learn compiler theory and hack away on my own.  The gcc project has
already assembled the expertise and processes to do a better job than I
ever could.

I am thinking about using FM documentation in the same manner.  Sugar
Labs has nowhere near the time or manpower to create documentation as
effectively as FM.

I hope that I did not appear as if I had a laundry list of things I
would like FM to do for me.  Rather, ?I would like to:

1.  Ask your permission to use your documentation as our primary user
documentation.

2.  Request that we work together to create the 'canonical' Sugar and
Activities documentation.

3.  Express that we are not expecting you to write our manual.  Instead,
we are using your manual about our product.

In return we will:

1. Always keep the documentation open.

2.  Send patches back upstream if we find bugs or ways to improve the
manual.  (Sending patches and finding bugs is not the right terminology,
but you get the idea.)

3.  Direct potential documentation writers to you to help build your
community.

Thanks
Dfarning

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:32:59 +0200
From: adam hyde <adam at flossmanuals.net>
Subject: Re: [FM Discuss] FM upstream to Sugar Labs
To: discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
Message-ID: <1214357579.7274.21.camel at resetera>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

hi,

>
> I am thinking about using FM documentation in the same manner.  Sugar
> Labs has nowhere near the time or manpower to create documentation as
> effectively as FM.

It sounds good to me, except you should note that FM is in some ways a
collection of communities. The OLPC manual is headed up by Anne and
several others have also worked on it. In this sense you could imagine
FM to be a smaller friendlier version of source forge. There is a
platform established for making manuals - but each manual must work out
its own way of getting contributions. For this reason I think Anne is
the FM touchstone on OLPC/Sugar manuals as she has already started this
process.

> 1.  Ask your permission to use your documentation as our primary user
> documentation.
>

All docs are GPL. So you are free to do with them as you like. Thats
actually the point but its very nice of you to ask :)

> 2.  Request that we work together to create the 'canonical' Sugar and
> Activities documentation.

sounds good to me. We should perhaps discuss how to bring others into
the project. Some on the FM list maybe interested but there are also
other strategies. Anne and I had considered applying for a small amount
of money to have a Book Sprint on Sugar...I think this could be a very
effective way of not just producing material but getting everyone
heading in the same direction.

>
> 3.  Express that we are not expecting you to write our manual.  Instead,
> we are using your manual about our product.
> In return we will:
>
> 1. Always keep the documentation open.
>
> 2.  Send patches back upstream if we find bugs or ways to improve the
> manual.  (Sending patches and finding bugs is not the right terminology,
> but you get the idea.)
>
> 3.  Direct potential documentation writers to you to help build your
> community.

I think its worth getting Annes thoughts on the above :)

adam

>
> Thanks
> Dfarning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
--
Adam Hyde
FLOSS Manuals

http://www.flossmanuals.net
+ 31 6 2808 7108
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20080626/70a09b36/attachment.htm>