Future direction of Ubuntu Documentation/Meeting times

[Sean Wheller]

On Friday 29 July 2005 03:07, Robert Stoffers wrote:
> There was a lot of talk at the meeting about the direction of
> documentation for the release of Breezy and beyond. Unfortunately Matt
> Galvin and several other key docteam members were unable to attend, so
> the decision was made to continue the discussion on the mailing list.


I agree with these points and would just like to add something.

I am amazed and disappointed at the manner in which Matthew Paul Thomas and 
Corey have handled this. This project is silently forcing its opinions on the 
whole team without majority concent and seems to be willing to undermine the 
current docteam and its projects.

Already, notes on launchpad advertise that this project is destined to become 
the frontpage of help, even before any docteam decision has been made.

The source for this project is not residing in SVN and Matthew has chosen to 
create a Bazaar repos. even before any docteam decision to use Bazaar.

At present a handful of docteam members know how to use Bazaar. This means 
that the learning curve to contribution has just been increased again. New 
members will have to learn SVN + Bazaar + Docbook.

Since only a few people know Bazaar, I do not think that the potential for 
everyone to contribute to this project has just been reduced.

The Bazaar repository should at least be on the Linode server and serve as a 
test area for all docteam to experiment with in learning how to work with 
Bazaar.

Trying to position localhelp has the document that will be the default 
homepage of help in Ubuntu is really presuming a bit much. This approach is 
so arrogant it is discusting. 

With regard to licensing issues. I see no reason to change the licensing we 
currently have. These licenses were agree by mako and sabdfl. They are 
standard licenses and widely used throughout the community.

The argument that Debian won't accept does not cut it. Ubuntu docs do not move 
upstream since they are not Debian. It was never intended that Ubuntu docs 
would write and push upstream. If people wish to do so, then I think they 
should move upstream.

The issues of license have been resolved many moons ago. Why people choose to 
bring this up now is beyond me. It is not productive and refocuses attention 
of authors off writing and onto licensing.

At present, I do not see how the localhelp project is part of the ubuntu 
documentation project. Ubuntu documentation project documents reside in two 
locations wiki and svn. Until the team decides differently, which may be the 
case post Breezy.

If <leaders of localhelp wish to change license and force positioning of the 
document over all else, then I suggest they firstly move the project into SVN 
and secondly accept the license terms. If not, then I think that this project 
is external to ubuntudocs project and should not try to subject the entire 
doc project to its wishes by silently forcing matters in a way that is so 
politically underhanded that it antagonizes team members.

The focus for now should not be on licenses or what is the home page of help. 
Rather people should be focused on writing text into the current documents 
and improving them. Documents such as those listed in the DocteamProjects are 
the agreed objectives. Localhelp is a fork that has arrived because of a 
difference in opinions. While the localhelp team have every right to fork. I 
see no reason why it should not be developed in SVN and under the current 
licenses. If the project chooses to work external to these services and 
frameworks then I don't think it is an ubuntu documentation project.

-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean at inwords.co.za
084-854-9408
http://www.inwords.co.za
Registered Linux User #375355
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20050729/602039d4/attachment.pgp>