Official vs. community

[Stephen M. Webb]

On 08/07/2014 05:51 PM, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Just read the log from yesterday's meeting.
> 
> http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.2014-08-06-17.01.moin.txt
> 
> One thing that caught my interest was the discussion on how we refer to
> the various type of help resources.
> 
> As regards the "official" desktop and server docs, it's true that they
> are typically not written and maintained by Canonical staff, but by
> volunteer community members. In that sense they are just as much
> "community" resources as the help wiki.

Ubuntu is a community-run distribution.  Anything "official" in Ubuntu is only designated so because it has received
official recognition by the community-run boards that recognize things as official parts of Ubuntu.  Documentation is no
different than, say, the package archives used to generate the official ISO images.  Community written, community
maintained, officially sanctioned.

As long as the processes for (a) producing and publishing the docs is clear and itself documented, and (b) the process
for participating in that process is also itself clear and documented, things are good as they stand.

I'm not so sure if any of those processes are documented clearly.  At least I haven't found clear docs on them.  Having
an officially sanctioned set of documentation is good.  It's how to get from A to B that seems to be murky.

-- 
Stephen M. Webb  <stephen.webb at canonical.com>