Hi, folks, I've been working through the CentOS wiki for more than a year now, trying to identify and fix outdated/wrong/obsolete content. It's a daunting task, and I'm losing. I would very much like to gather a group of people who are: * Knowledgeable about CentOS * Good with words * Have a little time who would be willing and able to review the content of the wiki, and fix the bits that are incorrect. The CentOS Documentation SIG (which doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way) is, according to the wiki: responsible for the content of the Wiki, and other public sources of documentation. This includes, but is not limited to: * Determining, and imposing, a hierarchy/architecture of content in the wiki * Editing/pruning existing content when it is incorrect/outdated/obsolete * Recruiting subject matter experts to do some of that editing * Recruiting translators to keep our various translations in sync [Ref: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Documentation ] If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if you're interested. I know that there are a number of you who are consistently active on this list. I would like to find a way to give us a little more power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level editorial decisions about information architecture. Also, having a formal SIG might be a way to engage more people to join the effort and dedicate some time to it.
Manuel Wolfshant
2020-Jul-01 00:14 UTC
[CentOS-docs] Documentation SIG: Participation wanted
Count me in. wolfy On June 30, 2020 9:20:55 PM GMT+03:00, Rich Bowen <rbowen at redhat.com> wrote:>Hi, folks, > >I've been working through the CentOS wiki for more than a year now, >trying to identify and fix outdated/wrong/obsolete content. It's a >daunting task, and I'm losing. > >I would very much like to gather a group of people who are: > >* Knowledgeable about CentOS >* Good with words >* Have a little time > >who would be willing and able to review the content of the wiki, and >fix >the bits that are incorrect. > >The CentOS Documentation SIG (which doesn't actually exist in any >meaningful way) is, according to the wiki: > >responsible for the content of the Wiki, and other public sources of >documentation. This includes, but is not limited to: > >* Determining, and imposing, a hierarchy/architecture of content in the >wiki >* Editing/pruning existing content when it is >incorrect/outdated/obsolete >* Recruiting subject matter experts to do some of that editing >* Recruiting translators to keep our various translations in sync > >[Ref: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Documentation ] > >If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I >would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if >you're >interested. I know that there are a number of you who are consistently >active on this list. I would like to find a way to give us a little >more >power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level editorial decisions >about information architecture. Also, having a formal SIG might be a >way >to engage more people to join the effort and dedicate some time to it. > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS-docs mailing list >CentOS-docs at centos.org >https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Jonathan Billings
2020-Jul-01 12:21 UTC
[CentOS-docs] Documentation SIG: Participation wanted
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:20:55PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:> If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I would > like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if you're > interested. I know that there are a number of you who are consistently > active on this list. I would like to find a way to give us a little more > power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level editorial decisions about > information architecture. Also, having a formal SIG might be a way to engage > more people to join the effort and dedicate some time to it.I'd like to volunteer as well. -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 14:20 -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:> If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. > I > > would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if > you're > > interested. I know that there are a number of you who are > consistently > > active on this list. I would like to find a way to give us a little > more > > power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level editorial > decisions > > about information architecture. Also, having a formal SIG might be a > way > > to engage more people to join the effort and dedicate some time to > it.I will like to volunteer for this endeavour. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20200703/fb1f75c5/attachment-0005.sig>
I'd love to volunteer too. On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 2:21 AM Rich Bowen <rbowen at redhat.com> wrote:> > Hi, folks, > > I've been working through the CentOS wiki for more than a year now, > trying to identify and fix outdated/wrong/obsolete content. It's a > daunting task, and I'm losing. > > I would very much like to gather a group of people who are: > > * Knowledgeable about CentOS > * Good with words > * Have a little time > > who would be willing and able to review the content of the wiki, and fix > the bits that are incorrect. > > The CentOS Documentation SIG (which doesn't actually exist in any > meaningful way) is, according to the wiki: > > responsible for the content of the Wiki, and other public sources of > documentation. This includes, but is not limited to: > > * Determining, and imposing, a hierarchy/architecture of content in the wiki > * Editing/pruning existing content when it is incorrect/outdated/obsolete > * Recruiting subject matter experts to do some of that editing > * Recruiting translators to keep our various translations in sync > > [Ref: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Documentation ] > > If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I > would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if you're > interested. I know that there are a number of you who are consistently > active on this list. I would like to find a way to give us a little more > power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level editorial decisions > about information architecture. Also, having a formal SIG might be a way > to engage more people to join the effort and dedicate some time to it. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-docs mailing list > CentOS-docs at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
FYI, I've sent a formal RFC, as described in the SIG guide - https://wiki.centos.org/SIGGuide Thanks to all who responded. On 6/30/20 2:20 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:> Hi, folks, > > I've been working through the CentOS wiki for more than a year now, > trying to identify and fix outdated/wrong/obsolete content. It's a > daunting task, and I'm losing. > > I would very much like to gather a group of people who are: > > * Knowledgeable about CentOS > * Good with words > * Have a little time > > who would be willing and able to review the content of the wiki, and fix > the bits that are incorrect. > > The CentOS Documentation SIG (which doesn't actually exist in any > meaningful way) is, according to the wiki: > > responsible for the content of the Wiki, and other public sources of > documentation. This includes, but is not limited to: > > * Determining, and imposing, a hierarchy/architecture of content in the > wiki > * Editing/pruning existing content when it is incorrect/outdated/obsolete > * Recruiting subject matter experts to do some of that editing > * Recruiting translators to keep our various translations in sync > > [Ref: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Documentation ] > > If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I > would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if you're > interested. I know that there are a number of you who are consistently > active on this list. I would like to find a way to give us a little more > power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level editorial decisions > about information architecture. Also, having a formal SIG might be a way > to engage more people to join the effort and dedicate some time to it. >
Hi, I only spotted this now. I'm definitely interested and we should keep docs.centos.org looped in as part of the SIG. Petr On 6/30/20 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:> Hi, folks, > > I've been working through the CentOS wiki for more than a year now, > trying to identify and fix outdated/wrong/obsolete content. It's a > daunting task, and I'm losing. > > I would very much like to gather a group of people who are: > > * Knowledgeable about CentOS > * Good with words > * Have a little time > > who would be willing and able to review the content of the wiki, and > fix the bits that are incorrect. > > The CentOS Documentation SIG (which doesn't actually exist in any > meaningful way) is, according to the wiki: > > responsible for the content of the Wiki, and other public sources of > documentation. This includes, but is not limited to: > > * Determining, and imposing, a hierarchy/architecture of content in > the wiki > * Editing/pruning existing content when it is incorrect/outdated/obsolete > * Recruiting subject matter experts to do some of that editing > * Recruiting translators to keep our various translations in sync > > [Ref: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Documentation ] > > If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I > would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if > you're interested. I know that there are a number of you who are > consistently active on this list. I would like to find a way to give > us a little more power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level > editorial decisions about information architecture. Also, having a > formal SIG might be a way to engage more people to join the effort and > dedicate some time to it. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-docs mailing list > CentOS-docs at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20200707/f640e65a/attachment-0005.html>
On 7/7/20 10:24 AM, Petr Bokoc wrote:> Hi, I only spotted this now. I'm definitely interested and we should > keep docs.centos.org looped in as part of the SIG.I left docs.centos out of it simply because I have no insight into how that is created. If you do, then *welcome aboard!!!*> On 6/30/20 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> Hi, folks, >> >> I've been working through the CentOS wiki for more than a year now, >> trying to identify and fix outdated/wrong/obsolete content. It's a >> daunting task, and I'm losing. >> >> I would very much like to gather a group of people who are: >> >> * Knowledgeable about CentOS >> * Good with words >> * Have a little time >> >> who would be willing and able to review the content of the wiki, and >> fix the bits that are incorrect. >> >> The CentOS Documentation SIG (which doesn't actually exist in any >> meaningful way) is, according to the wiki: >> >> responsible for the content of the Wiki, and other public sources of >> documentation. This includes, but is not limited to: >> >> * Determining, and imposing, a hierarchy/architecture of content in >> the wiki >> * Editing/pruning existing content when it is incorrect/outdated/obsolete >> * Recruiting subject matter experts to do some of that editing >> * Recruiting translators to keep our various translations in sync >> >> [Ref: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Documentation ] >> >> If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I >> would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if >> you're interested. I know that there are a number of you who are >> consistently active on this list. I would like to find a way to give >> us a little more power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level >> editorial decisions about information architecture. Also, having a >> formal SIG might be a way to engage more people to join the effort and >> dedicate some time to it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS-docs mailing list >> CentOS-docs at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs >> > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-docs mailing list > CentOS-docs at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs >
Sorry, folks, i know I have made zero progress on this. The last two months have been unexpectedly busy. I hope to get back to this soon, unless someone wants to pick up the charge. On 6/30/20 2:20 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:> Hi, folks, > > I've been working through the CentOS wiki for more than a year now, > trying to identify and fix outdated/wrong/obsolete content. It's a > daunting task, and I'm losing. > > I would very much like to gather a group of people who are: > > * Knowledgeable about CentOS > * Good with words > * Have a little time > > who would be willing and able to review the content of the wiki, and fix > the bits that are incorrect. > > The CentOS Documentation SIG (which doesn't actually exist in any > meaningful way) is, according to the wiki: > > responsible for the content of the Wiki, and other public sources of > documentation. This includes, but is not limited to: > > * Determining, and imposing, a hierarchy/architecture of content in the > wiki > * Editing/pruning existing content when it is incorrect/outdated/obsolete > * Recruiting subject matter experts to do some of that editing > * Recruiting translators to keep our various translations in sync > > [Ref: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Documentation ] > > If any of the above appeals to you, I would ask you to let me know. I > would like to create a SIG around the wiki. Please let me know if you're > interested. I know that there are a number of you who are consistently > active on this list. I would like to find a way to give us a little more > power/authority over the wiki to make higher-level editorial decisions > about information architecture. Also, having a formal SIG might be a way > to engage more people to join the effort and dedicate some time to it. >