Re: finally: new authors

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: > > Agreed, we need to spend our own time promoting ourselves and > > not force everyone to do the research. If there is any question > > (which will happen in most cases) then show the goods. Listing > > raw statistics won't do it, neither will relying on people to > > remember everything. > > Yep. This seems to be discussed, and agreed on. Or have I missed > something against this? Just making sure :) > > What categories are on the table? AFAICT we have: > > > > a) Authors > > b) Editors > > c) Technical Editors > > As discussed, technical editor is probably not a good name for those > working on the build system. So some other clever name is needed ;) Doh! > > d) Notes Maintainers > > e) Contributors > > These are more than all right with me. > > > f) Extension maintainers? > > g) Helpers? > > > > [...] > > > I like the idea of people leading the charge on an extension if > > that person actually knows the topic and will actively update > > and maintain it. For example, ncurses, domxml, pcntl, sockets, > > the list goes on. These extensions need people to document > > them and do require some specialized knowledge. We need a way > > to find knowledgable people to maintain and/or update extension > > documentation. So how about the ability to "lead" extension > > documentation? The one drawback of course is once an extension > > has a maintainer pershaps others won't want to touch it. We can > > combat that though, shouldn't be too much of a problem. The > > person who just asked to document ncurses is an example and would > > most likely enjoy this role. There was a similar situation with > > domxml awhile back. > > Agreed. > > > I'm still not comfortable with our proposed doc categories nor > > do I have a proposal nor do I even know what the proposal is. > > Anyone feel comfortable proposing specific categories and > > including detailed descriptions of each? :) Maybe in a new > > thread? :) > > I don't think so I can define these ;) Nice! > > :) How about we take a similar approach to advogato in that > > we also have a "Helper" category. This won't list everyone > > with a CVS account but will list even more people. That and > > the ability for people to maintain individual extensions... > > Hm, I don't know advogato. How is the Helper category defined there (the > people section of the site does not seem to get to me on the wire..). There isn't a definition, it's just used. It's difficult to define "who is a helper" but there must be some people that fit this category. Basically I feel the list of contributors will [should] be small. The idea of "helpers" seems okay to me as somewhat of a compromise. Regards, Philip