Sec: Unclassified The FAQ Guide and LocalHelp

[Sean Wheller]

On Tuesday 02 August 2005 02:04, Stoffers, Robert LAC wrote:
> 1. Keep the existing licensing system we have now, discuss changes after
> Breezy. -  There is only four contributors to the FAQ, two of us are
> willing to go with a GPL licence at some stage. That's 50% already. 

+1

> 2. Make 
> the FAQ Guide the front page of Yelp
>     - The FAQ already covers most of the ground LocalHelp does and its
> already written 

+1 but I am a little concerned that a long toc in the front page is not a good 
idea. I feel that both localhelp and faq would result in a long toc. We may 
bee able to avoid this by generating a toc only form the qanda divs. If so 
then I have only one more concern. That documentation from upstream and other 
projects be easy to find and access. I would be happy if the toc tree of yelp 
was opened with categories or documents listed.

The problem is that Yelp is a broken design. I don't think that throwing just 
one more doc at the user problem will fix all itches. That said, we have not 
had any developers actually offering to improve yelp. There is some movement 
upstream. From what I have seen, it will not result in a yelp revolution.

> 3. Scrap LocalHelp, licence the content under the GFDL and 
> CC-BY-SA (so is compatible with the FAQ Guide) and add some of it to the
> FAQ Guide, eg "If you're new to Ubuntu 5.10". 4. Write these few additional
> sections.

+1 this is what should have happended from the start under consultation with 
those that have done the work. Corey and Matthew (PT) should be willing to 
take into consideration that many people did lots of work so that FAQ Guide 
could be. During Warty, Plovs ported the warty version of UbuntuGuide.org. 
During Hoary I ported the hoary version and now people like Rob^, mgalvin, 
myself and more, have all worked to make FAQ what it is.

> 5. Release with Breezy as Yelp main page.

+ 1 see point 2.

> 6. Talk about licence changes after Breezy.

+ 1 A license change at GNOME or KDE is most important to us. The Debian 
change is not so. At best case, I would opt to give GNU some time. They are 
bound to address the situation and I think that Debian should work with them 
to change GFDL, not just decide to remove docs that are under GFDL. I cannot 
see how this approach from Debian is helping anyone, especially not the 
users. I hope that Ubuntu does not also decide to adopt such a radical 
approach.

-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean at inwords.co.za
084-854-9408
http://www.inwords.co.za
Registered Linux User #375355
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20050802/67b98a52/attachment.pgp>