Direction of the Ubuntu system docs

[Jim Campbell]

Hi All,

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Matthew East <mdke at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> On 19 December 2010 22:06, Phil Bull <philbull at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In light of this, I think it's time we discussed the direction of the
> > Ubuntu system docs. The package is becoming outdated - we've mostly been
> > in maintenance mode for the last few release cycles, and even that's
> > only due to the hard work and dedication of a couple of people. There
> > are a number of changes in Ubuntu and related projects that we're going
> > to have to adapt to and make some decisions about if we're to stay
> > relevant:
>
> I have to say that I can't really think of a good solution in order to
> make ubuntu-docs relevant again. The options seem to be:
>
> 1. continue with the ubuntu-docs package, but rewrite the documents so
> that they match Ubuntu's default desktop setup, with Unity.
> 2. seek to come closer to Gnome by shipping a modified gnome-user-docs
> package with documents added and amendments to the default documents
> to reflect maintained by us in Mallard.
> 3. work on documentation to be shipped directly in the unity packages.
>
>
Thanks for summarizing this, Matthew. I think you helped to clarify our
options.

There might be an additional option of writing Unity specific docs that
aren't intended for trunk, too.  While this may not be ideal, wouldn't it be
feasible to have an external dependency on a unity-docs package?  If Unity
is used by an upsteam project, would it be difficult for them to grab unity
and unity-docs? I think both options are serviceable.

I suggest this because I think it would be good to provide complete user
help, but I don't see people running to sign this agreement and contribute
docs to trunk.

There is the concern about the docs needing to be rewritten if Unity is ever
re-licensed, but isn't that the problem of whoever has to rewrite the docs?
It would seem that it would be *their* time that is wasted, not our time.
Our docs would still benefit users while the software is open-source.
Someone else would have to rewrite docs if the app is ever made proprietary.
That becomes their problem.

Anyway, I know it's a moot point, but the contributor agreement requirement
seems a bit silly to me for docs. Even in a worst-case scenario where Unity
is made proprietary, is it really a problem if the docs are licensed as they
are?  That is just my opinion, though, and I know it wouldn't really factor
in to someone's business decision. Whoever wants to own something like that
probably wouldn't want to worry about different parts that are included /
not included.

Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20101222/c78d52c4/attachment.html>