[Zope3-dev] Re: Development methodology (Re: [Zope-CMF] Future CMF) (rant)

[kapil thangavelu]

On Saturday 12 October 2002 08:29 am, you wrote:
> kapil thangavelu wrote:
> > honestly i find the information in wikis hard to get through and
> > dissemniate, it takes alot of time to play the click tracking game, which
> > i find distractful from the actual dissemniation of content. i would be
> > vastly in favor of a pep style system (not proposal wise just
> > document-wise) powered by backtalk. spend that extra time you would have
> > spent organizing a wikis or delving through one doing something useful
> > liking writing or coding.
>
> I think the difference you're talking about has nothing to do with wiki
> vs. PEP.  I think the difference is in the maturity level of the
> software being discussed.  A PEP is easier to understand mainly because
> the technology discussed (Python) is well understood.  Some of the Zope
> 3 wiki is hard to understand because the technology is still under
> development and is not understood well enough to document.  Switching to
> a PEP system would not change this.
>

I think i can agree to disagree :-).

Even though I don't know the C internals of python, i'm still able to follow, 
most of the peps that discuss its internals. in contrast, the concepts in z3, 
seem much more natural, albeit that could be because i've been to enough 
sprints or i've had enough time to let things settle in, yet sifting through 
the z3 wikis seems like a treasure hunt game in comparison to the peps. with 
the peps, the fact that all the material is a single document with an easy to 
find and read index, where i'm not forced to click through possibly several 
links to find a new term, greatly eases the time requirements and effort for 
understanding.  the proposal section of the z3 wikis, is actually pretty good 
(once you know where to look ;-). but the rest of the foundational material 
z3 wikis feels fairly hard to get hold of. the use cases for some of z3 being 
a good case in point, imo. i dunno, maybe its a personal style preference, i 
would rather sit on a single web page, as opposed to clicking through to find 
new terms one per page. i'd much prefer a single structured document per 
paradigm, with a definition section up front.

fundamentally i think it comes down to what people think the zope3 process is 
about. if the proposal system is just a mechanism to have the community hash 
out ideas and create content quickly, then fine, wikis are fantastic!. but if 
the process is to create documentation artifacts, then i think its 
problematic. put another way, why aren't the ZDG, and Zope Book in wikis. 
Wikis are not universally liked nor do they, imo, aid in facilitation of 
transfer of large amounts of content. they are a digital whiteboard. and 
reading through a whiteboard as a documentation artifact is a messy business, 
that can turn people off. take a look at the documentation  artifacts for 
projects like php or mysql. both of them have a reputation for excellent 
documentation on the basis of comprehensive commentable manuals (something 
incidentally, which i think backtalk does a better job with internode comment 
capabilities).

 wiki love isn't universal. learning how to use and read a wikis requires 
time. ie. how do i print a wikis, how do i find this, how do i edit this, why 
is every definition on its own page, etc. wikis are a culture, the wiki way. 
otoh, take something like backtalk, its a straightforward intuitive natural 
format (book/manual), with easy print (via pdf), and commenting facilities.

> To anyone who feels an inkling to reply to this thread: don't reply,
> instead direct your energy toward some wiki gardening.  It's easy. :-)

your right, but i'm devoting some time instead to cmfizing backtalk, ;-)
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/collective/CMFBackTalk/

happy gardening, 

-kapil