ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

[Ryan Macnish <nisshh.ubuntu@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think canonical would either, i will let you guys know what happens
with the other manual in terms of a sprint. The thing with the other
manual's sprint is that there are only about 7-8 of us who are working on
it, some of those people are Aq, Rick Spencer, Didier Roche, me, another guy
who's name i cant remember and Michael Terry, so i think we have a good
chance of getting funded, because of the small amount of people.

Ryan Macnish

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Benjamin Humphrey <humphreybc@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Ryan,
>
> A canonical funded sprint would be totally kickass but I'm not sure we can
> convince them to pay for it at this stage. Would be awesome though.
>
> Benjamin
>
> interesting.co.nz
> ohso.co
> On 1/11/2010 1:13 PM, "Chris Woollard" <cwoollard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That would probably be useful.
> >
> > I am up for it.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1 November 2010 00:09, Ryan Macnish <nisshh.ubuntu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh yeah guys, i forgot to mention what happened at the UDS-N session for
> >> the developer manual (i was remote participating), one of us there
> suggested
> >> that we have a face-to-face canonical funded sprint sometime this cycle.
> >> What do you guys think about that?
> >>
> >> Ryan Macnish
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Chris Woollard <cwoollard@xxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> All I know is that I have tried really hard to get people to help out.
> >>> Sure, I have had my own life to deal with as well (Which has also be
> busy),
> >>> so I have not always been around. But I have tried to get people to
> help
> >>> edit / proof read. I have even posted new builds of the pdf after
> changes
> >>> have been made. I have to say that it really feels like I have been
> doing
> >>> most of the work myself :( This is quite de-motivating.
> >>>
> >>> It would really be great if things could be turned around. With the
> Lucid
> >>> release it really felt like we were all working as a team. With
> Maverick,
> >>> that has just not happened. Dare I say it, but the manual project kind
> of
> >>> feels orphaned.
> >>>
> >>> I hope things can change.
> >>>
> >>> All the best
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>> On 31 October 2010 23:16, Ilya Haykinson <haykinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So in conclusion, i don't think we should release less often, we
> should
> >>>>> just work to improve our workflow and the workflow of new
> contributors
> >>>>> whether they be authors, editors or translators. Also i do remember
> that
> >>>>> Ilya was around a lot during the lucid cycle sort of being an editor
> in
> >>>>> chief, but since then we haven't had anyone doing that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I've been keeping up with the mailing list traffic, but have been very
> >>>> busy at work for the last 5 months or so -- so much so that I couldn't
> >>>> really contribute to the Maverick release. I completely agree that the
> main
> >>>> thing that is required is some small group of people who serve as the
> >>>> editors and drive the process along -- making decisions on where to
> cut and
> >>>> where to focus, etc. Obviously I couldn't spare the time for the
> Maverick
> >>>> cycle, and am not yet sure how the Natty cycle will look for me (the
> first
> >>>> couple of months are going to be tough for sure).
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I think it's critical to release every 6 months, even if the
> >>>> quality isn't great. Only through frequent releases combined with
> small
> >>>> improvements can the end product end up great -- if you take 2 years
> to do a
> >>>> release, I think the team will fall apart.
> >>>>
> >>>> My recommendations are (some are the same as what others have
> >>>> recommended):
> >>>>
> >>>> - manage translations separately, and do not release the manual to
> >>>> translators until after the manual is ready to go. this will yield a
> >>>> smoother translator experience as the content won't be changing from
> under
> >>>> them, and will simplify the manual itself.
> >>>> - delay the manual publishing date for 3-5 weeks after each release,
> to
> >>>> allow content and screenshots to catch up
> >>>> - by beta1, have a firm list of changes to be included in the manual;
> a
> >>>> week after release date, cut anything that hasn't been written or is
> >>>> possible to get to the highest quality.
> >>>> - work to improve the process. I think this is the least important
> item,
> >>>> honestly, since core contributors will always be ok with downloading
> TeX and
> >>>> dealing with compilation etc, and while it's key for long-term project
> >>>> health to bring in casual contributors, I think that a) this is a
> >>>> stand-alone process that shouldn't be mixed into shipping the manual
> itself,
> >>>> and b) the manual comes first, well before automation or better
> processes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> -ilya
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> >>>> Post to : ubuntu-manual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> >>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> >>> Post to : ubuntu-manual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>