Re: Role and function of the docs team

[Andreas Røsdal <andrearo pvv ntnu no>]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Joachim Noreiko wrote:
> Here is what I suggest should happen instead:
>
> 1. You currently have a list of suggested new games. I
> image you'll be making a shortlist for the survey
> fairly soon and the developers of these will be
> contacted.
> 2. The developers of these games write to the docs
> list, saying something like this:
> "Hi. My game is being considered for GNOME. Please
> could you take a look at the docs I have / help me
> write a manual from scratch."
> 3. I strongly doubt that any of the games under
> consideration would *completely* rewrite their UI
> between now and freeze.
> Most devs would have at least a vague idea of a
> roadmap, and could say to us "features a b and c will
> change, but the rest is stable".
> EVEN with an app due for a complete UI change, we'd be
> able to help them get a user manual template into
> their CVS, and add to it an introduction and overview
> of the rules.
> With existing manuals, we can convert what's already
> there to docbook, and help them get into shape for GDP
> style. Looking at the manual for Hearts for example,
> http://www.jejik.com/hearts/users/, it falls into the
> trap of doing a listing all the menus instead of
> focussing on tasks the user wants to accomplish.

All in all I think your suggestions sounds like a good idea. Giving the 
GDP more time to prepare the documentation is important. I will discuss 
a time-line for inclusion of the new game with the other gnome-games 
developers, and get back to the GDP with more info.

If the new game would be _decided_ when GNOME 2.17.4 (string announcement 
period) is released, then there would be enough time for the GDP to bring 
the docs up to GNOME standards, right?

 - Andreas