My real name is Francis Earl, for obvious reason however, I prefer Frank. I currently reside in Phoenix, Arizona. (PST)
I'm currently not working, however I am 3 classes from an AAS in Network Technology.
My primary purpose for joining the arts team is to hopefully make entry easier for people interested in Fedora. I wish to do this by providing information on fedoraproject.org that will hopefully assist them in getting started. I believe that other projects are so popular because the requirements for entry are lower, and hopefully I'll help ensure Fedora starts down a similar path.
I was an early contributor to Ubuntu documentation, and have made contributions to many OpenSUSE wiki pages. These are mostly related to what normal users will want to do when they get started, very basic things explained because I was sick of answering them in the IRC channels, and also to remind me of the process :)
I don't think anything really makes me an excellent match for the project. I think I simply have the time to write the pages many would find tedious, things directed at new users. Everyone was one once though, and I don't know about you, but it was very confusing for me. There are no User Manuals for Fedora users, I believe the wiki should become exactly that. A User Manual for Users by Users, and I don't think such things can be written by anyone but the users :)
I feel like I just went through an interview process, is that really the feel people want for contribution to the project?
-------------------------------------------------
[fearl@thabox ~]$ gpg --fingerprint 7BDB4407 pub 1024D/7BDB4407 2007-04-29 Key fingerprint = 7125 6099 AAEF C64F 3F3E DC5F 9172 8F72 7BDB 4407 uid Frank Earl (Trey) lunitik@gmail.com sub 2048g/590237A4 2007-04-29
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:26 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
My real name is Francis Earl, for obvious reason however, I prefer Frank. I currently reside in Phoenix, Arizona. (PST)
Nice to have you aboard Frank.
I'm currently not working, however I am 3 classes from an AAS in Network Technology.
My primary purpose for joining the arts team is to hopefully make entry easier for people interested in Fedora. I wish to do this by providing information on fedoraproject.org that will hopefully assist them in getting started. I believe that other projects are so popular because the requirements for entry are lower, and hopefully I'll help ensure Fedora starts down a similar path.
We have several initiatives already underway to help as well, including click-through CLA for easier wiki contributions. Many folks have devoted many hours to figuring out the best way to do this, and you can also help by participating in the Fedora Infrastructure project if you're interested.
Some other projects don't have as high a bar because their specific legal requirements are less. Since Fedora is sponsored by a US company, while being run by a full community effort, it has to maintain some minimal protections to make sure we don't legally endanger our biggest bankroller. :-)
I was an early contributor to Ubuntu documentation, and have made contributions to many OpenSUSE wiki pages. These are mostly related to what normal users will want to do when they get started, very basic things explained because I was sick of answering them in the IRC channels, and also to remind me of the process :)
I don't think anything really makes me an excellent match for the project. I think I simply have the time to write the pages many would find tedious, things directed at new users. Everyone was one once though, and I don't know about you, but it was very confusing for me. There are no User Manuals for Fedora users, I believe the wiki should become exactly that. A User Manual for Users by Users, and I don't think such things can be written by anyone but the users :)
The Documentation Project is basically here to oversee such efforts and make sure they maintain high standards of quality. We're happy to see motivated people stepping up to contribute content!
I feel like I just went through an interview process, is that really the feel people want for contribution to the project?
It helps us get a feel for the relative experience and linguisitc skills of a contributor. That you felt you had participated in an interview is not too far off the mark, although most folks haven't seemed to mind if it helps them find good traction off the bat.
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:05 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:26 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
My real name is Francis Earl, for obvious reason however, I prefer Frank. I currently reside in Phoenix, Arizona. (PST)
Nice to have you aboard Frank.
Thank you :)
I'm currently not working, however I am 3 classes from an AAS in Network Technology.
My primary purpose for joining the arts team is to hopefully make entry easier for people interested in Fedora. I wish to do this by providing information on fedoraproject.org that will hopefully assist them in getting started. I believe that other projects are so popular because the requirements for entry are lower, and hopefully I'll help ensure Fedora starts down a similar path.
We have several initiatives already underway to help as well, including click-through CLA for easier wiki contributions. Many folks have devoted many hours to figuring out the best way to do this, and you can also help by participating in the Fedora Infrastructure project if you're interested.
Some other projects don't have as high a bar because their specific legal requirements are less. Since Fedora is sponsored by a US company, while being run by a full community effort, it has to maintain some minimal protections to make sure we don't legally endanger our biggest bankroller. :-)
Not sure why I said arts team there... while I agree that causing any legal issues for RedHat is surely not a good idea, I believe there are things we can do to assist in pointing users in the right direction while still avoiding that.
My primary reasoning here though is discussed in my previous e-mail relating to the Drafts page. Making the docs less intimidating, and providing users with more guides to common tasks. The wiki should eventually become THE user manual for Fedora, and I hope to contribute to that end.
There is plenty of information we can share, and the wiki can also be a good place to inform users why some things aren't available. Also, with the CodecsBuddy, we apparently can now talk about accessing some of the things that were previously an issue.
I was an early contributor to Ubuntu documentation, and have made contributions to many OpenSUSE wiki pages. These are mostly related to what normal users will want to do when they get started, very basic things explained because I was sick of answering them in the IRC channels, and also to remind me of the process :)
I don't think anything really makes me an excellent match for the project. I think I simply have the time to write the pages many would find tedious, things directed at new users. Everyone was one once though, and I don't know about you, but it was very confusing for me. There are no User Manuals for Fedora users, I believe the wiki should become exactly that. A User Manual for Users by Users, and I don't think such things can be written by anyone but the users :)
The Documentation Project is basically here to oversee such efforts and make sure they maintain high standards of quality. We're happy to see motivated people stepping up to contribute content!
I'm not sure how I take this, as I'm not sure exactly how you define "high standards of quality". I believe they should be accurate, and I believe they should be informative. I'm worried that this also includes maintaining a professional feel to the documents. I believe that is the wrong approach, depending on the target audience of each document. It shouldn't feel like a text book to the user reading it, which is somewhat the feel I got from the few documents I have read so far.
I feel like I just went through an interview process, is that really the feel people want for contribution to the project?
It helps us get a feel for the relative experience and linguisitc skills of a contributor. That you felt you had participated in an interview is not too far off the mark, although most folks haven't seemed to mind if it helps them find good traction off the bat.
I apparently got the job, so I guess it went well :)
Francis Earl wrote:
Not sure why I said arts team there... while I agree that causing any legal issues for RedHat is surely not a good idea, I believe there are things we can do to assist in pointing users in the right direction while still avoiding that.
Please consult with others before doing anything that is not immediately obviously to point to like software in the official Fedora repository.
There is plenty of information we can share, and the wiki can also be a good place to inform users why some things aren't available. Also, with the CodecsBuddy, we apparently can now talk about accessing some of the things that were previously an issue.
The legal situation has not changed. Software that is compliant with the legal situation has been developed and we can point to it with some caveats.
Rahul
There is plenty of information we can share, and the wiki can also be a good place to inform users why some things aren't available. Also, with the CodecsBuddy, we apparently can now talk about accessing some of the things that were previously an issue.
The legal situation has not changed. Software that is compliant with the legal situation has been developed and we can point to it with some caveats.
What do these caveats involve? As far as I was aware, Fluendo is now providing these codecs legally, and thus it was perfectly legal for users to access those codecs.
I also understand that Fedora is very strong on it's notion of what should be in the distro, and I very much agree. It is also a very good opportunity to educate users however about free alternatives while informing them about legal access to things they may want.
I'll be sure to ask before making such suggestions, it will require some self education first however, as I'm not fully aware of the Fluendo options.
Francis Earl wrote:
There is plenty of information we can share, and the wiki can also be a good place to inform users why some things aren't available. Also, with the CodecsBuddy, we apparently can now talk about accessing some of the things that were previously an issue.
The legal situation has not changed. Software that is compliant with the legal situation has been developed and we can point to it with some caveats.
What do these caveats involve? As far as I was aware, Fluendo is now providing these codecs legally, and thus it was perfectly legal for users to access those codecs.
Access is just one issue. Distribution is another. When it comes to distribution there might be multiple patent holders involved. See http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_.... That's just FYI.
I also understand that Fedora is very strong on it's notion of what should be in the distro, and I very much agree. It is also a very good opportunity to educate users however about free alternatives while informing them about legal access to things they may want.
Wording is important. Anything that suggests users to encourage proprietary solutions even if they are legal is tricky since it does not help our goals with Fedora. Usually these software don't support all the architectures that we support. So there are practical issues too.
Rahul
Access is just one issue. Distribution is another. When it comes to distribution there might be multiple patent holders involved. See http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_.... That's just FYI.
Wow, I always assumed such companies had legal access to MP3, and I was under the impression that it was really an enforced patent anyway. Definitely makes you think!
Wording is important. Anything that suggests users to encourage proprietary solutions even if they are legal is tricky since it does not help our goals with Fedora. Usually these software don't support all the architectures that we support. So there are practical issues too.
How would you go about it? I'd probably bring up Theora tools, and explain that those are recommended, perhaps even pointing to ways they can transfer their current audio and video to Theora formats.
Then explaining that there are legal ways to access support for such codecs if they absolutely require it, maybe providing them with comparisons that show OGG is actually just as good, if not better.
Saying "this is illegal, so we don't do it" is not good enough in my opinion. Ill informed users will never make good choices.
Francis Earl wrote:
Access is just one issue. Distribution is another. When it comes to distribution there might be multiple patent holders involved. See http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_.... That's just FYI.
Wow, I always assumed such companies had legal access to MP3, and I was under the impression that it was really an enforced patent anyway. Definitely makes you think!
Precisely. Pity that people still ask Fedora Project all the time to distribute mp3 codecs without ever understanding the goals of the project or the legal and financial risks.
Wording is important. Anything that suggests users to encourage proprietary solutions even if they are legal is tricky since it does not help our goals with Fedora. Usually these software don't support all the architectures that we support. So there are practical issues too.
How would you go about it? I'd probably bring up Theora tools, and explain that those are recommended, perhaps even pointing to ways they can transfer their current audio and video to Theora formats.
Then explaining that there are legal ways to access support for such codecs if they absolutely require it, maybe providing them with comparisons that show OGG is actually just as good, if not better.
That would work.
Saying "this is illegal, so we don't do it" is not good enough in my opinion. Ill informed users will never make good choices.
Sometimes we can't take the legal risk we won't do it like pointing to third party repository that includes software that would infringe some patents. That's not up for debate.
Rahul
On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 17:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Francis Earl wrote:
Access is just one issue. Distribution is another. When it comes to distribution there might be multiple patent holders involved. See http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_.... That's just FYI.
Wow, I always assumed such companies had legal access to MP3, and I was under the impression that it was really an enforced patent anyway. Definitely makes you think!
Precisely. Pity that people still ask Fedora Project all the time to distribute mp3 codecs without ever understanding the goals of the project or the legal and financial risks.
Exactly, although understand I'm not saying that. I'm fine with the current situation, with the addition of informing users better as to the real ramifications if RedHat did take such risks.
Saying "this is illegal, so we don't do it" is not good enough in my opinion. Ill informed users will never make good choices.
Sometimes we can't take the legal risk we won't do it like pointing to third party repository that includes software that would infringe some patents. That's not up for debate.
I'm not saying that, I'm talking about actually informing users, rather than saying simply "no". It's hard for people to understand the real reasons without pointing out things like the article you pointed me to. Making such things easier for users to find and educate themselves would be a great start rather than basically avoiding the question.
Perhaps if something good comes of the wiki page, even linking to that from apps when the user tries to open MP3's.
Francis Earl wrote:
I'm not saying that, I'm talking about actually informing users, rather than saying simply "no". It's hard for people to understand the real reasons without pointing out things like the article you pointed me to. Making such things easier for users to find and educate themselves would be a great start rather than basically avoiding the question.
We have explained most of these things in documents like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ or the multimedia wiki pages. That does help on some occasions.
Perhaps if something good comes of the wiki page, even linking to that from apps when the user tries to open MP3's.
That's precisely one of the use cases of codec buddy. See the specification for details.
Rahul
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:48 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:05 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
The Documentation Project is basically here to oversee such efforts and make sure they maintain high standards of quality. We're happy to see motivated people stepping up to contribute content!
I'm not sure how I take this, as I'm not sure exactly how you define "high standards of quality". I believe they should be accurate, and I believe they should be informative. I'm worried that this also includes maintaining a professional feel to the documents. I believe that is the wrong approach, depending on the target audience of each document. It shouldn't feel like a text book to the user reading it, which is somewhat the feel I got from the few documents I have read so far.
I agree that we don't have to have the same tone of voice as e.g. Red Hat documentation. That's the text-book feel you are describing. However, that shouldn't affect quality. For example, when describing a set of steps to a user that includes stepping them through a GUI dialog, it is vital that the wording of the instructions matches what you see on screen 100%. Otherwise, the user loses confidence in the document. I see such mistakes very often, especially on the Wiki, where it is easy to whip out a document.
Often a clever voice gets in the way of helping the user, which is why technical writing often squeezes out the cleverness in favor of clarity and accuracy.
The same thing is true for grammar. When a document has common, obvious, or even subtle wording and grammatical mistakes, it undermines confidence in the document. Obviously, I'm a writer, so I have a prejudice here.
Yet, would we ask our programmers to put out software that had similar mistakes? Well, we do, no software is perfect from the start, that's what the open source process provides us (a chance to continually correct.) So, a Wiki can accomplish all of these ends, but *only if* the team that maintains it can continually move the content toward clarity, technical accuracy, and grammatical correctness.
It it those requirements that are the basis for this project. The Internet is full of how-to-do-stuff instructions that do not meet these "high quality of standards," and AFAIC, the Internet can keep them. They do help, sure, while they subtly undermine. This project is our chance to correct the undermining and make people's open source experience that much better. :-)
- Karsten
This was an unsent email that had some value, so I am completing and sending. We'll have to start these ideas in earnest once Fedora 7 is out the door.
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:26 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
There are no User Manuals for Fedora users, I believe the wiki should become exactly that. A User Manual for Users by Users, and I don't think such things can be written by anyone but the users :)
I've been sitting with this idea all day (month), and it keeps popping back forward into my thoughts. I'm really liking this idea; it's a reinventing of what the Fedora Wiki has become.
It has been the *everything* Website. For that reason, you find:
* Tighter ACLs * Unobvious and confusing mixture of "formal project content" from "community documentation." * Too many processes in confusing places being applied through the Wiki * The Wiki is a beat-up hammer, and every problem is a nail * Etc.
The CMS we are very actively working on making live (Plone) gives us a way to make "easy to write and edit" available, similar to a Wiki, without having to force the Wiki to be a pseudo-CMS.
This means we can reinvent the Wiki as a community open collaboration space. We can change the rules to be easier on "how docs should sound".
Frank, what you have come across (that isn't making sense to you from where you have been before) is this -- the Wiki was forced into services it really wasn't made for.
I feel like I just went through an interview process, is that really the feel people want for contribution to the project?
Maybe not so much, but maybe just a little bit. To contribute to the bigger documentation effort, yes, we want to know that you have a clue, can write, can put thoughts together coherently, and (very importantly) are going to stick around long enough to help maintain the content you are contributing.
For the Wiki and community documentation, nope, we probably do not need anything like this.
Fortunately, we have the all-clear to make the Wiki easier with a click-through CLA and no GPG-signing of anything. Another post-Fedora 7 release task to handle.
- Karsten
docs@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Francis Earl -
Karsten Wade -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram