Arch Linux Documentation

Question

Is anyone in charge of developing Arch Linux documentation? From an interview that I came across on the net, I gather that there is. If so, could I ask what the programme is to improve documentation and what the target dates are?
If there isn't anyone in charge, are there people who would be interested in working on documentation, maybe within the Arch community, but maybe outside on an independent site?

Answer 1

redge wrote:
I get the sense that there are a lot of people involved in this distribution who like to pretend that deficiencies are strengths. I also think that the distribution is undermanned. Normally, if a project is undermanned, the idea is to bring people on-board. Trashing people who explore the possibility of getting on-board, and who in the process ask some hard questions, given that getting on-board involves a commitment of time and effort, is not necessarily a clever strategy.
Anyway, having read through this thread, the question in my case is now academic. There is no way that I am going to dedicate 8-10 hours a week to documentation is if people think that spare documentation is a badge of honour. Besides, it is so much easier to write the occasional post.
This is all fair enough; if you don't feel that your efforts would be useful, then by all means don't "waste" time on it (I say this from the point of view that I think you should feel fulfilled by your contributions to this kind of community, not "I didn't like what you said, so I don't want your help" kind of way ) . I think a lot of the feelings expressed in this thread are summed up by the last line of your post, but in a more positive way. That is to say, the Arch Forums are fantastic, and people are willing to answer questions that come up here. As a result, they are maybe unwilling to spend time adding stuff to the wiki that may be too general to cover specific questions anyway. I do think there are a lot of projects and common questions that can be summed up in informative wiki pages (and a lot of things *are* covered there). Perhaps naturally, the wikipages that *do* get written are ones that involve projects people are personally involved or interested in (I put in a wmii wiki page at one point when I got into ruby-wmii, but even that has fallen behind wmii releases at this point).
There have obviously been documentation efforts, and plenty of people that stop by to say "Hey, I'd like to help". However, I think the stopping point for a lot of people is either a) What needs documenting and b) Gee, I don't know anything about the stuff that needs documenting! I actually think the best wikipages are born of arch forum threads; when a discussion has a lot of great tidbits, somebody usually chimes in and says "Hey, somebody make a wikipage", or better yet, "Hey, I already made a wikipage, check it out and add stuff if you want". This works, because obviously a lot of people reading the threads that end up creating the wikipages *know* about the subject. Also, people are immediately alerted in the thread that there's a new page, and may say "Hey, I can add to that", as opposed to a system where people are just going through adding pages and hoping other people notice and add stuff too.
So, in summary, I guess I'd say that documentation is great, but due to the nature of Arch, our efforts work the best when the ball is already rolling in the forums. Which really is the best way for a "smaller" distro like Arch, IMO. Maybe to you this still seems like a "deficiency" that Arch users think is a strength; it seems to me to be more of a natural product of a really active user community (where instead of there being a group of people dictating what documentation is needed and such, those things that come up in community end up being codified in the wiki).
Personally, for me, I think a good documentation effort would be to keep your eye on long or very active threads; if they look like they have juicy info in them, condense it into a wikipage and announce it in the thread. Of course, that's just one Archer's opinion, and not necessarily of one that knows what he's talking about . I do agree that there are steps that could be taken to make tackling documentation easier (and I am aware that Dusty has the "Wiki volunteers wanted" thread for this) for people that "want to lend a hand", and I'm certainly not saying the efforts that have gone on so far have been wasted. I just like the idea of the really active community in the forums being leveraged to help the "static" documentation in the wiki. See a thread that indicates the install guide is lacking info is confusing? Make the wiki edit! See a thread with great new info? Start a new wiki page! See a thread born of BAD INFORMATION in the wiki? DEFINITELY update the wikipage! Embrace the wikiness of the documentation; worry less about "who maintains this page", and more about "what are the actual issues users are having, and can I change something right now to help?". Coming from this angle really reduces the feeling of being overwhelmed when loading up the wiki to edit it with no particular agenda in mind... rather, you have particular pages in mind, and you know they will be immediately useful.
Cripes, this was a long post. Sorry! Hopefully it will encourage people to contribute, even if it's just a small edit on a single page, without them worrying about becoming documentation maintainers. You don't have to be an expert at everything or anything, but being a part of a community is contributing what you can when you can. Oh, and yeah, this post probably looks funny coming out of the mouth of an "Occasional poster"; I'm actually on the forums daily, looking for spots where I can answer a question, and do so when I can.. my lack of posts is simply an indication of my not knowing enough .
Oh, and as to the response to Dusty's response... I feel like we see these kind of responses a lot on the forums, and I kind of wish people wouldn't take such umbrage at these comments. These comments are a result of people *knowing* the community. It doesn't mean that they think your idea is stupid, it just means that they're telling you what has been true in the past, and why certain things maybe don't work out. It doesn't mean you shouldn't feel like you can contribute how you want; it's open, go for it. Get the ball rolling; the community may embrace it gladly. If it didn't, well, you contributed out of love of the community, and that will certainly still be appreciated.