in reply to Re^5: Pmdev documentation
in thread Pmdev documentation
you can't see any real benefit to separating technical from end user documentation
It's not that I don't see any benefit; I certainly do. The crux of the issue, for me, is the separation: How are we to implement that separation? I contend that having it in a separate faqlist, or family of faqlists, is quite adequate. And not only adequate, but in fact we wouldn't want it to be any more separate than that. But that's jmho.
Anyway, as I said before, this is a false dichotomy; pmdev are users, and non-pmdev users have an interest in how PerlMonks works. So keeping the technical documentation in the same library, but on a different shelf, makes plenty of sense. And there's already some precedent for putting cabalistic docs in the FAQ system — not that they couldn't be moved, if it came to that.
would you really feel the same way if it you weren't so worried about the technical issues?
Maybe not. :-) It's hard to say. I find it difficult to put the technical issues out of my mind. But I do know that implementing your scheme will require far more work than simply deriving new nodetypes from sitefaqlet&faqlist with Creator/Updater/Deleter set to pmdev.
Which kinda leads me to another reason I'm opposed to the plan: it creates a very regrettable precedent. Because if we do this for pmdev documentation, why should we not also do it for janitors documentation, and for QandAEditors documentation, and SiteDocClan documentation, and Power Users documentation, and gods documentation, and Pedagogues documentation, and Cabal documentation? And maybe even moderators documentation as well?
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^7: Pmdev documentation
by ELISHEVA (Prior) on Aug 12, 2009 at 20:54 UTC |