Converting to Mallard?

[Shaun McCance]

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 19:49 -0400, Kyle Nitzsche wrote:
> Hi Phil and all,
> 
> 1) Does this approach (using upstream/Gnome help and adding 
> Ubuntu-specific content to stub locations therein) support removing 
> upstream content? It seems likely, or at least possible, that some 
> upstream content might, for whatever reason, be inappropriate for Ubuntu 
> (and/or its variants, of which there are many and of which there will in 
> all likelihood, be many, many more).
> 
> 2) Is the upstream/Gnome content really the best for Ubuntu? Even though 
> it may simplify development and maintenance, the value to the Ubuntu 
> user should perhaps be a higher priority. There should be a systematic 
> analysis of Gnome help content with discussion to determine whether it 
> is right for Ubuntu before serious considering it.

I'm not going to address what's best for Ubuntu, its users,
or its contributors. But I do want to point out that Phil
is the primary person driving the new Mallard-based Gnome
help right now. It's not a matter of taking some black box
from some nebulous "other" provider. Distro people can, do,
and absolutely should shape upstream software.

> I've spoken before advocating development of a "true north" for Ubuntu 
> Docs that expresses a set of high level priorities so that decisions can 
> be well and publicly made. I would rank highly utility (to the user) and 
> customizability (to support Ubuntu variants). Secondary (but still very 
> important) items include, for me, work load. That is, a system that 
> meets top priorities may well involve more work, but that work may be 
> justified.

My top priority is always to help users as best as possible.
That should be the top priority of everybody working on user
assistance. But when working with volunteer communities, you
have to balance that with what people can reasonably provide
without getting burned out.

--
Shaun