lucien.gentis at medecine
May 9, 2012, 6:39 AM
Post #3 of 7
Le 9 mai 2012 à 14:07, Daniel Gruno a écrit :
Re: Questions for further discussion about Documentation commentary system
[In reply to]
> On 09-05-2012 13:35, Lucien Gentis wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>> * Should translations have their own separate discussion threads, or
>> should they show the same thread as the English version?
>> I think each translation should have their own separate discussion
>> threads, because I can't imagine a french discussion appended to a
>> turkish or korean document ; it would probably get no answer !
> A valid point, and that's also what we're doing currently in the testing
>> * If this is adopted to other branches, should 2.4 and trunk (and
>> possibly 2.2) be linked, or should each branch have a separate
>> discussion per subject?
>> The discussion must appear in each version it applies to.
> This is a bit more tricky than that. If we were to attempt to have the
> discussion "appear in each version it applies to", the closest we could
> get would be to merge it on a per-module basis, so that fx. core.xml
> would have the same discussion thread in 2.2 and 2.4. This could however
> cause a lot of trouble, since 2.4 has upgrades like If, Else and so on,
> which do not appear in 2.2. So I think our best option is to keep the
> versions separate.
I only meant that if a comment is 2.2 and 2.4 related, it should appear in each version.
But how could it be achieved ?
Each time a moderator validates a comment in 2.4 docs for example, he should verify
if it's also 2.2 related, and if it is, port it to 2.2
This could lead to big work for the moderators.
> A more general problem with this is that Google
> continues to point to our 2.0 documentation whenever someone comes here
> for help, so they'll never hit the discussion threads. If we could
> Redirect those requests to our 2.2 or 2.4, then we'd have way more
> people using our current docs and participating in the discussions. But
> perhaps that's a totally different discussion.
>> * Should we do regular XML exports of the discussion, and if so, where
>> should we store it?
>> A good question ! :-) Let's go to the next one (this only means I have
>> no answer)
> I think we can postpone a resolution on this matter for a while, since
> it doesn't look like Disqus is going bankrupt just yet.
>> * Who will moderate, and how will new moderators be picked?
>> I think moderators should be people who actually write the docs, because
>> in addition to moderation, probably they will have to answer complex
>> As a translator (and I only speek for my own case), I probably (and even
>> surely) won't be able to answer all questions.
> I think the discussions are more of a "help yourself and others" type of
> discussion, where we hope other readers will be able to help out, and
> not just the docs people working 24/7 to answer questions. Regarding who
> should be moderators, I think that by allowing others from the docs@
> list to become moderators, we would lower the bar for participating, and
> wouldn't require everyone to sign an ICLA just to moderate comments.
Yes, like you say below, let us see what types of content are within the comments.
>> * Which approach to moderating the discussions would be best? For
>> instance, should we approve all comments before they are shown, and
>> who should be allowed to comment?
>> I think that, as a test you could allow everybody to comment, at least
>> in the beginning, and see as time passes if it is appropriate.
>> How to moderate : I think all comment that's related to the subject must
>> be accepted.
> I agree with this - let's see if spam or ill will is actually an issue
> before we decide on this :)
> With regards,
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd
Faculté de Médecine - Nancy
lucien.gentis [at] univ-lorraine
03 83 68 30 62