[Grok-doc] Reviewed documents that need actions:

Sebastian Ware sebastian at urbantalk.se
Mon Jul 13 14:08:04 EDT 2009

I agree!

I think we should retract the document on grok.zope.org. The point of  
our effort is to maintain the community documentation. We use [grok- 
doc] for discussions so anybody can give input. At this stage, finding  
the original author/owner of a tutorial or posting is a PITA so we  
can't do more than announce our intentions on [grok-doc].

As long as we keep the discussions public, people have a reasonable  
chance to give input. I think I have permissions to retract the  
document, so I'll do it.

Mvh Sebastian

13 jul 2009 kl. 20.00 skrev Steve Schmechel:

> This brings up some other questions I have about the correction  
> process:
> - How long do we wait for authors to fix something before it is  
> retracted?
> - Who has the permission to retract a published document?
> I don't have rights to edit somebody else's document, but that would  
> sometimes be a way to correct and keep a document, rather than just  
> retracting.
> - Should we mark the blueprint "obsolete" or "finished" before the  
> actual actions on the document have been done?  I had marked a  
> blueprint obsolete last night, but then it disappeared from the  
> list.  I had to move "back" in my browser history in order to change  
> it back so it showed up again.  I'm afraid if we remove the  
> blueprints too soon, we won't know what actions we need to take on  
> the site to complete our work later.
> - Should we keep a separate task list of actions coming out of the  
> reviews?  (Basically a task list from all the whiteboards.)  Or,  
> better yet, can we get the permission to go in an complete needed  
> tasks like document retraction or version tag updates and be just  
> done with it.
> I know we have a published process in place for getting people  
> involved in the reviews.  I think we need to complete that document  
> by spelling out how all the possible results of the reviews affect  
> the eventual changes to the documentation content, status, and/or  
> categorization.
> What ideas do you guys have?
> Steve
> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Grok-doc] Reviewed documents that need actions:
>> To: "Sebastian Ware" <sebastian at urbantalk.se>
>> Cc: grok-doc at mail.zope.org
>> Date: Monday, July 13, 2009, 11:29 AM
>> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 13:33 +0200,
>> Sebastian Ware wrote:
>>> Steve has revied the following document that would
>> need some editing:
>>>    Handling file uploads with
>> zope.app.file and zope.file
>>>    https://blueprints.launchpad.net/grok/+spec/doc-uploading-file
>>> He also proposes that we mark the following document
>> as superseeded:
>>>    Customising Fields in Grok AddForm
>> and EditForm
>>>    https://blueprints.launchpad.net/grok/+spec/doc-customizing-form-fields-in-grok-forms
>>> Mvh Sebastian
>> I agree.  I notice that there is already a note that
>> it is outdated.  I
>> changed the status of the blueprint as well.
>> The document should probably be retracted so that it isn't
>> even seen by
>> new comers.
>> --Tim
>> -- 
>> Timothy Cook, MSc
>> Health Informatics Research & Development Services
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
>> Skype ID == timothy.cook
>> **************************************************************
>> *You may get my Public GPG key from  popular
>> keyservers or   *
>> *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home*
>> **************************************************************
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> grok-doc mailing list
>> grok-doc at mail.zope.org
>> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/grok-doc

More information about the grok-doc mailing list