incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [user guides] Use of AOO logo on cover of ODFAuthors user guide?
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:30:34 GMT
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 14:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Jean Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 26/04/2012, at 12:31, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jean Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 21:27, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Main thing is to avoid having the user be confused about the source
of
>> >>>> the documentation.  It is from ODFAuthors, not AOO.  So when we
host
>> >>>> the files on the wiki, we should make sure it is clear to the user
>> >>>> where to report errors,where they can go to volunteer, who they
can
>> >>>> thank, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding hosting the files on the wiki, I assume you mean on a page
>> >>> linked from this one (which needs a major overhaul, probably by me,
if
>> >>> we're going to keep it):
>> >>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation  I have not
>> >>> been paying close attention to this list, so I am not up to date about
>> >>> what is planned for the wiki.
>> >>>
>> >>> I was under the impression that new ODFAuthors books might not be
>> >>> allowed on the wiki, but rather the wiki would have only a pointer to
>> >>> somewhere else that they might be stored. The last time I paid
>> >>> attention (some time ago), several suggestions (with precedents) had
>> >>> been made. Has that been decided one way or the other?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Do you have a preference?  If you host the guides externally, then
>> >> you can drive traffic to the ODFAuthors site and maybe get more
>> >> volunteers or even donations.
>> >
>> > Everything we have produced to date is stored on the beneficiaries'
>> > wikis (OOo and LO). Our strong preference is to continue this
>> > arrangement. We do NOT want to drive traffic to the ODFAuthors
>> > website. Experience suggests that we do not get quality volunteers
>> > that way, and the site is not set up to be user-friendly to the
>> > general public.
>> >
>> > IMO it would be highly preferable for all concerned if any potential
>> > volunteer techwriters were steered towards towards the AOO project,
>> > not ODFAuthors, if those people are interested in working on AOO docs.
>> > AOO really needs to have its own user docs team producing materials
>> > under the Apache license.
>> >
>> >> From policy perspective, having the guides on the wiki is debatable.
>> >> I could see it either way.
>> >>
>> >> In favor of it, I'd say:
>> >>
>> >> 1) It is a community wiki where content is welcome from anyone
>> >> 2) We're currently hosting the OOo 3.3 guides there.
>> >>
>> >> Opposing would be:
>> >>
>> >> 1) We should not be distributing large files via the website
>> >> (including the wiki).   This is a bandwidth issue.
>> >
>> > What is a "large file"? The individual chapters are in the 500KB - 2MB
>> > range; the full books are rarely over 10MB.
>> >
>> > I have no idea how many copies of these files are downloaded per day,
>> > month, year.
>> >
>>
>> The important number is really size * # of downloads.  10MB is larger
>> than the releases for many Apache projects, and these downloads are
>> all done through the mirror network, to preserve bandwidth.  As I
>> understand it, the ASF is using donated bandwidth, and it needs to be
>> conserved.  So large/frequent downloads go to the mirror network
>> rather than the websites.
>>
>> I wonder whether one solution is to serve up the documentation
>> downloads via MirrorBrain and then have the wiki just link to those?
>
> Could be, but it's also the number of downloads that is a concern and I
> kind of think downloads of the full doc package would be relatively
> infrequent  (not sure how to answer that question definitively today,
> however)

One approach:

As I mentioned in a previous post, the wiki has Google Analytics
enabled on it, but for some legacy account that we don't have access
to.  If that can be updated to point to the new GA codes then we can
get a baseline of what the download activity is for the OOo 3.3
guides.  Based on that we'd have a better idea on whether this will be
a bandwidth issue or not.

I think Raphael has the admin access needed to do the GA updates.

-Rob

> - anyway, maybe it's worth asking Infra if they have a preference. 10
> Megs might be bigger then most of the source releases from other
> projects but isn't really that big, in an of itself. I would think using
> one of the wiki platforms is a lower barrier, process wise, for all
> concerned.
>
> Just my first thought on that.
>
> //drew
>
>>
>> >> 2) We should not be distributing large files in general outside of a
>> >> release.   A community wiki as a wiki is fine.  But using it as a a
>> >> 3rd party distribution mechanism is more problematic.  That's why we
>> >> have things like the extensions and templates repositories.
>> >
>> > If the size of the files, or the volume of downloads, or the general
>> > policy of distributing the docs through the wiki, is a problem, then
>> > let's look at setting up a repository for third-party documentation...
>> > which btw consists of more than just the docs produced by the
>> > ODFAuthors group. IMO that would be the best longer-term arrangement
>> > for all concerned.
>> >
>> > --Jean
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message