This is a meeting summary and log for the DocumentationTeam meeting of 2 August 2009.

Summary

Meeting started at 15:07. The chair is mdke.

DITA and Mallard -- any comments?

ACTION: continue to monitor Gnome upstream adoption of Mallard with a view to evaluating whether it could work for the project

Discussion about licensing for wiki.ubuntu.com

AGREED: defer to Community Council for discussion/decision

Status update on Kubuntu and Xubuntu documentation

ACTION: Defer to next meeting where Kubuntu/Xubuntu guy are around

Categories and SubPages for the Wiki Playbook: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WikiSandBox/CategoryConcept

ACTION: technomensch and andrew_sayers to work on developing the specification further in light of feedback provided

ACTION: Rocket2DMn to review existing projects for categorising wiki pages, identify abandoned ones and do some serious cleanup

Discussion about automating answers to common questions

ACTION: Shane, Popey and andrew_sayers go and work out something simple, that can be implemented in a few weeks. When that's done, we show it off and see if we can get some interest. If so, we'll start work on a bigger, bolder version 2, with more ambition

Discussion about the new draft of the HUC front page, which adds the Ubuntu Signpost, and removes a lot of other content

ACTION: andrew_sayers to add the new HUC front page to the community wiki with the Signpost and discussion to continue on the mailing list

Discussion of the use of screencasts in Ubuntu documentation, and the future of screencasts.ubuntu.com

ACTION: popey to email the list with his vision for screencasts in the docs

Meeting finished at 16:51.

Log

[21:05] <mdke> here's the agenda - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/MeetingAgenda
[21:06] <mdke> I think we can safely skip the first two items, unless anyone would like to introduce themselves as a new contributor, or has questions about how to get involved?
[21:07] <mdke> oh, and
[21:07] <mdke> #startmeeting
[21:07] <MootBot> Meeting started at 15:07. The chair is mdke.
[21:07] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:08] <mdke> ok, so let's deal with the old business first
[21:09] <mdke> [TOPIC] DITA and Mallard -- any comments?
[21:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  DITA and Mallard -- any comments?
[21:09] <DougieRichardson> Not really much to say, Jim's not here is he?
[21:09] <mdke> doesn't look like it
[21:09] <DougieRichardson> Either technology has their advantages
[21:09] <mdke> for those interested, DITA and Mallard are alternative document formats to docbook
[21:09] <DougieRichardson> and in the long term we need to give it serious consideration
[21:10] <DougieRichardson> but not realistically in the short to medium term
[21:10] <Rocket2DMn> Are they easier to edit than docbook?
[21:10] <DougieRichardson> There's too much change
[21:10] <mdke> Mallard certainly is
[21:10] <DougieRichardson> Not really, although there is a DITA editor
[21:10] <mdke> the idea is to reduce the number of tags used to those absolutely necessary
[21:10] <technomensch> what about managing?
[21:10] <mdke> so it's a lot simpler than docbook
[21:10] <DougieRichardson> Jim knows more than I do about the editing side of life
[21:11] <Rocket2DMn> Is there a tool to convert docbook xml to either of those?
[21:11] <mwcrowley> any editor reccomendations?
[21:11] <mdke> I'm not aware of one at the moment for mallard
[21:11] <DougieRichardson> There are
[21:11] <andrew_sayers> About editing - I assume that importing/exporting to/from OOo would be considered sacrilege?
[21:11] <DougieRichardson> (For DITA)
[21:11] <mdke> andrew_sayers: that might work for new documents, subjct to the xml being cleaned up afterwards
[21:12] <mdke> andrew_sayers: but I don't think it can work for editing existing documnts
[21:12] <Rocket2DMn> Sounds like this needs to be researched more, we're getting mixed responses.  Is there a spec for this idea?
[21:12] <mdke> anyway, DougieRichardson is right, these are for consideration in the long term, but not now, I don't think
[21:12] <technomensch> agreed that more research is needed
[21:13] <mdke> given that Gnome upstream is moving to Mallard, we'll need to consider it in terms of sharing material for ubuntu-docs
[21:13] <DougieRichardson> There was a lot of involvement from the developer of Mallard last time I spoke to Phil on IRC, but he's not here
[21:13] <technomensch> a pros/cons compatibilty chart, along with a cost (time/work involved) analysis should probably be time
[21:13] <Rocket2DMn> What would be really great is a good graphical method for editing docs, like having an "ubuntu-docs" project in an IDE of some sort
[21:13] <DougieRichardson> Technically, I prefer DITA but as you said mdke, Gnome is moving to Mallard
[21:14] <mdke> for us to move generally to Mallard, I'd like to see if KDE adopts it too
[21:14] <DougieRichardson> Importing from web  editing is probably worth focussing on
[21:14] <DougieRichardson> moin->xml
[21:14] <mdke> but we'll have to see how Gnome arranges their work to see if we'll be "forced" to use it for ubuntu-docs
[21:14] <DougieRichardson> I agree
[21:15] <Rocket2DMn> Agreed, we may have our hands tied by Gnome's upstream decisions if we want to keep the integration
[21:15] <DougieRichardson> we should probably discuss it on list, as I don't think any one at woscon is her now
[21:15] <Shane_Fagan> Whats the timeframe on Gnomes change to Mallard ?
[21:16] <mdke> Shane_Fagan: unclear at present, because it involves rewriting the whole user guide
[21:16] <DougieRichardson> shane_fagan: I understood it was for 3.0
[21:16] <Rocket2DMn> do they have a target date for 3.0?
[21:16] <mdke> Shane_Fagan: but some things are moving already, like the Empathy manual
[21:16] <mdke> it will depend on manpower
[21:17] <Shane_Fagan> Rocket2DMn: October of next year I think
[21:17] <Rocket2DMn> If they release in October, then we are 6 months behind, right?  So Karmic+3?
[21:18] <Shane_Fagan> April Sorry
[21:18] <Rocket2DMn> that's assuming Ubuntu takes on Gnome 3.0 for the dev cycle right after it is release upstream
[21:18] <Rocket2DMn> oh, April '10?
[21:18] <Shane_Fagan> Yep
[21:18] <Shane_Fagan> Just looked at the roadmap
[21:18] <mdke> both Milo and Phil are heavily involved on the upstream team so they can keep us in touch with developments
[21:19] <Rocket2DMn> Ok, I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.  Thanks for making us aware of it.
[21:19] <mdke> as a proposal, I'd suggest we continue to monitor things, I don't think there is any need to take any decisions at the moment
[21:19] <Rocket2DMn> +1
[21:19] <Shane_Fagan> +1
[21:19] <DougieRichardson> +1
[21:19] <mdke> ok
[21:20] <technomensch> +1
[21:20] <mdke> [ACTION] continue to monitor Gnome upstream adoption of Mallard with a view to evaluating whether it could work for the project
[21:20] <MootBot> ACTION received:  continue to monitor Gnome upstream adoption of Mallard with a view to evaluating whether it could work for the project
[21:20] <mdke> moving on
[21:20] <mdke> [TOPIC] Discussion about licensing for wiki.ubuntu.com
[21:20] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discussion about licensing for wiki.ubuntu.com
[21:21] <mdke> this is on the Community Council agenda, so I suggest we leave that to them
[21:21] <DougieRichardson> I agree with that
[21:21] <Rocket2DMn> mdke, can you explain why it is being discussed?
[21:21] <Rocket2DMn> What is the current license, and what is the proposed change?
[21:21] <mdke> see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda for background
[21:21] <Rocket2DMn> ok, thanks
[21:22] <mdke> any more comments on this item?
[21:22] <Shane_Fagan> nope
[21:23] <mdke> [AGREED] defer to Community Council for discussion/decision
[21:23] <MootBot> AGREED received:  defer to Community Council for discussion/decision
[21:24] <mdke> [TOPIC] Status update on Kubuntu and Xubuntu documentation
[21:24] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status update on Kubuntu and Xubuntu documentation
[21:24] <mdke> anyone around from Kubuntu, Xubuntu?
[21:24] <Rocket2DMn> vorian ?
[21:24]  * DougieRichardson spots tumbleweed rolling across the room
[21:24] <vorian> eh?
[21:25] <technomensch> he speaks...
[21:25] <mdke> neither of jjesse or nixternal are around for Kubuntu
[21:25] <mdke> Jim isn't here for Xubuntu
[21:25] <Rocket2DMn> hey vorian , any status update on Kubuntu docs?
[21:25] <vorian> not for sure
[21:25] <vorian> I am somewhat confident that jjesse got an earlier start this cycle
[21:26] <mdke> hey shaun
[21:26] <shaunm> hi mdke
[21:26] <shaunm> I just missed a mallard conversation?
[21:26] <mdke> a fairly brief on :)
[21:26] <mdke> I'll paste it in a msg
[21:26] <shaunm> cool, thanks
[21:26] <Rocket2DMn> ok, thanks vorian
[21:26] <vorian> no problemo
[21:28] <Rocket2DMn> mdke, anything else for this topic?
[21:30] <mdke> ok, so on this item I'll propose we defer it to a meeting when the interested people are around
[21:30] <mdke> it's difficult to say anything in the absence of the people working on Kubuntu and Xubuntu
[21:30] <mdke> is anyone here interested in helping out on those projects for documentation?
[21:30] <mdke> any contribution will be well received, I'm ure
[21:30] <mdke> shall we move on for the time being?
[21:30] <mdke> *sure
[21:31] <Shane_Fagan> yep
[21:31] <mdke> [ACTION] Defer to next meeting where Kubuntu/Xubuntu guy are around
[21:31] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Defer to next meeting where Kubuntu/Xubuntu guy are around
[21:31] <mdke> [TOPIC] Categories and SubPages for the Wiki Playbook: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WikiSandBox/CategoryConcept
[21:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  Categories and SubPages for the Wiki Playbook: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WikiSandBox/CategoryConcept
[21:31] <shaunm> hey, if you're going to discuss mallard further in another meeting, can somebody give me a ping over email?
[21:32] <technomensch> I guess that brings me to the table of discussion
[21:32] <mdke> shaunm: sure thing, this was kinda hung over from a previous meeting I think - but is there anything you would like to add now?
[21:32] <DougieRichardson> shaunm sure can
[21:32] <technomensch> I defer my time to shaunm if he has anything to add before we proceed
[21:33] <mdke> thanks technomensch
[21:33] <shaunm> nothing concrete.  I'd just like to hear the concerns from ubuntu, so I know what we need to address upstream
[21:34] <mdke> from my point of view, I think it look good - my only concern would be adoption by more projects
[21:34] <mdke> in particular, I'd be a bit concerned that people contributing to our team might have to learn more than one markup if they wanted to work on Gnome or KDE documents
[21:35] <shaunm> right, I've talked to j1mc and nixternal about getting together for a face-to-face, since we're all pretty close to each other
[21:35] <mdke> that would be great
[21:35] <mdke> at the moment, not many people contribute to more than one "flavour" of Ubuntu, so it may not be a real concern I guess
[21:35] <technomensch> perhaps a summary of that meeting might be beneficial
[21:36] <mdke> generally, I think Mallard will be an improvement to Ubuntu becaue we'll have a greater ability to plug things into Gnome documents
[21:36] <shaunm> technomensch: we'll definitely do a write-up if we manage to schedule a time and place
=== vorian is now known as buttercup
[21:37] <mdke> I believe that KDE is due a rewrite of their help system
[21:37] <mdke> a cross desktop help system would rock
[21:37] <shaunm> agreed
[21:37] <mdke> DocsKit
[21:38] <Shane_Fagan> ha
[21:38] <mdke> ok, let's shift back to the agenda item on wiki categories
[21:39] <mdke> this is andrew_sayers' baby
[21:39] <andrew_sayers> Well, it's more technomensch's.
[21:39] <mdke> and technomensch
[21:39] <mdke> ah, my bad
[21:39] <technomensch> well, the whole thing started with my volunteering to develop the wiki playbook
[21:39] <andrew_sayers> He came up with a what, I suggested a how :)
[21:40] <technomensch> there wasn't that much to fix up from the last meeting, but I wanted to introduce an organizational structure and how editors should include it in their work
[21:40] <technomensch> try to bring things under an umbrella like dome
=== buttercup is now known as vorian
[21:41] <technomensch> so I brought it to the mailing list, and andrew came with a good idea.  I took his work, modified it to plain, laymen's english terms
[21:41] <technomensch> and that wiki page is the culmination of that work
[21:41] <technomensch> essentially, I got the idea from our current "tag" system
[21:42] <technomensch> I think having "CategoryPrograms" "CategoryHardware" would make the urls tooo long
[21:42] <technomensch> so we're recommending making higher level categories
[21:42] <technomensch> without having to actually change the URLs
[21:43] <technomensch> and if this is acceptable, we can make specific hug days for specific categories
[21:43] <technomensch> like a week for programs, a week for hardware, etc....
[21:43] <mdke> I still find the wiki page a bit difficult to understand presentationally
[21:43] <technomensch> and try to knock out this organization and clean-up
[21:44] <Rocket2DMn> I've been reading through this page for the last 15 min or so, and I still don't understand what is happening
[21:44] <Daviey> .
[21:44] <technomensch> let me try it a different way
[21:44] <mdke> I *think* there is a good idea behind it
[21:44] <technomensch> you know are "tag" system
[21:44] <mdke> but the page needs some work to ensure that it can convince people and gets the idea across properly
[21:45] <technomensch> where we "include" tags and use those links to make the tags that need work
[21:45] <andrew_sayers> Would it be easier if you had a look at an example (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WikiSandBox/CategoryConcept/InstallingPrograms), then looked at the raw text, to see what page editors would have to add?
[21:45] <technomensch> good suggestion andrew
[21:46] <DougieRichardson> so what is the advantage of this approach?
[21:46] <technomensch> easier to find docs, organization, structure
[21:47] <andrew_sayers> Allows a hierarchy of categories.
[21:47] <DougieRichardson> and potential disadvantages?
[21:47] <technomensch> lack of participation
[21:47] <technomensch> or understanding
[21:47] <Rocket2DMn> This sounds like a high maintenance project
[21:47] <DougieRichardson> in what way?
[21:47] <mdke> I can definitely see the advantages in presentation because it allows the user to find quickly other pages in a similar category
[21:48] <Shane_Fagan> It does look at lot easier to navigate
[21:48] <mdke> the potential disadvantage is definitely the level of maintenance required
[21:48] <technomensch> agreed matt
[21:48] <mdke> but it could be made easier for users to create pages with that layout by using templates for new pages in a particular category
[21:48] <technomensch> for a project of this size, it would be extremely difficult
[21:48] <andrew_sayers> I'm not sure I understand the maintenance argument - can you give an example?
[21:49] <technomensch> good suggestion matt
[21:49] <DougieRichardson> how can we address that? What we be the maintenance issue - ensuring categories ae entered
[21:49] <mdke> andrew_sayers: it's not actually that easy for users learning how to edit th wiki, who are already thrown by some of the markup, to understand what they need to do
[21:49] <mdke> i think there will be a lot of inconsistent application of the idea throughout the wiki
[21:49] <Rocket2DMn> These have to go and get applied to all existing pages, and made sure they are added to new pages.  I don't think we can expect new pages to use this, wiki history has shown as that people just make whatever they feel like
[21:49] <technomensch> and my goal with the playbook is to make it as simple/easy as possible for new editors
[21:50] <Rocket2DMn> That said, I do think we need something, I just find this difficult to understand
[21:50] <andrew_sayers> mdke: Right, I see.  FWIW, adding a page to an existing category is only a smidgen different to the way it works at present.  But getting that fact across might be hard.
[21:50] <DougieRichardson> is there anyway we can make the addition of category mandatory and can we then control what categories are available
[21:50] <mdke> andrew_sayers: yeah, I'm not condemning the idea at all
[21:50] <mdke> I have a couple of suggestions
[21:50] <technomensch> dougie, I would think that could be set in a drop box??
[21:51] <technomensch> what category it should be in, that is
[21:51] <DougieRichardson> technomensch: that's what i thought
[21:51] <mdke> the first is to do a bit of work on the spec page to make things a bit clearer to people reading
[21:51] <Rocket2DMn> Are these new Categories designed to be used for pages about programs/applications?  What about more abstract pages?
[21:51] <technomensch> we can make instructional/educational categories
[21:52] <Shane_Fagan> Rocket2DMn: an other category maybe
[21:52] <mdke> the second is to make the example pages and example category top level, rather than subpages of the spec itself, because that is one of the confusing things about the spec
[21:52] <mdke> that's a small tweak
[21:52] <technomensch> and create an example of a template page that would create a new page with the templates preinserted
[21:52] <mdke> the third suggestion would be to list the intended categories, because I think this is a great chance to pin down how we use categories as opposed to tags
[21:52] <technomensch> agreed
[21:53] <technomensch> kinda of like a category flowchart
[21:53] <Rocket2DMn> Ok.  Is this something wen can use to flag pages as applicable to different versions of Ubuntu as well?
[21:53] <technomensch> there is a thought
[21:53] <andrew_sayers> Could we add some content to the generic page template?
[21:53] <mdke> Rocket2DMn: I'd say no
[21:54] <mdke> Rocket2DMn: because that would involve using the category concept for different types of function
[21:54] <mdke> at the moment, it distinguishes pages with different subject matter
[21:54] <Rocket2DMn> ok
[21:54] <Rocket2DMn> So what about these series of pages - https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Applications
[21:54] <andrew_sayers> That would let us provide some default categories that people can choose from.
[21:54] <mdke> (as opposed to the tag system, which deals with the editorial state of pages)
[21:55] <technomensch> rocket, that type of page would be modified to fit this structure....
[21:55] <technomensch> in other words, it wouldn't have to be managed manually
[21:55] <mdke> andrew_sayers: yes, definitely
[21:55] <technomensch> but rather, automatically via the moinmoin system
[21:55] <Shane_Fagan> automatically is good
[21:56] <technomensch> but that page is almost the perfect example
[21:56] <Rocket2DMn> understood technomensch ,.  Current there are a couple of different attempts at organization conflicting on the wiki right now.  There was a SoftwareProject , and the Applications, etc.  I would love to get those cleaned up, probably in advance of implementing this new idea
[21:56] <technomensch> because it has a well defined structure with subcategories
[21:56] <mdke> Rocket2DMn: +1
[21:57] <Rocket2DMn> I've been hesitant to act on those b/c I'm not sure which as still active, or which have been abandoned
[21:57] <technomensch> well this would give us a chance to find out
[21:57] <Rocket2DMn> Is duncan lithgow still around?
[21:57] <mdke> I haven't seen him around for a while
[21:58] <Rocket2DMn> I think he was implentning the Software/ pages (i.e. see the pages shown here - https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SoftwareProject )
[21:58] <Rocket2DMn> that was supposed to be a change from https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Applications/ProjectHome
[21:58] <technomensch> do you guys think we'd be able to get some hands on deck for a few hug sessions if we break these categories up and solely focus on one at a time, rather than letting everyone run rampant
[21:59] <mdke> yes, I think that would work
[21:59] <mdke> but I think the spec needs some work first, so that it can become our "definitive" guide to using categories
[21:59] <Rocket2DMn> that sounds good technomensch .  I think b/c attempts have been made in the past, we really need to make sure this one is going to work.  One of the best ways to ensure it's success is to clear out conflicting projects in advance
[21:59] <technomensch> agreed
[22:00] <mdke> technomensch, andrew_sayers - would you be prepared to work on the spec based on the feedback in this session and represent it at the next meeting or via the list?
[22:00] <andrew_sayers> FWIW, it looks like the default "Describe PageName here." text is hard-coded in MoinMoin, so editing it is probably not practical.
[22:00] <mdke> we could probably make a default template
[22:00] <technomensch> I think that was part of the plan matt
[22:00] <Rocket2DMn> mdke, on the subject of templates, the DocumentationTemplate seems to have been hijacked -https://help.ubuntu.com/community/DocumentationTemplate
[22:01] <technomensch> ew
[22:01] <andrew_sayers> Fine by me.  Unless people say otherwise, my plan would be to create four documents - "for readers", "for page authors", "for category authors", and "for administrators", where each adds more information.
[22:01] <technomensch> good catch rocket
[22:01] <technomensch> actually andrew, this is all going in the playbook
[22:01] <DougieRichardson> Oh I remember him asking questions on the mailing list
[22:01] <andrew_sayers> Then my plan is for you to do whatever you like ;)
[22:02] <technomensch> well andrew, this is what I have in mind
[22:02] <Rocket2DMn> technomensch, ill take the aciton to move that SAGE documentation, and revert to the real template
[22:02] <mdke> Rocket2DMn: reverted, thanks
[22:02] <Rocket2DMn> oh, ok
[22:02] <technomensch> thanks
[22:02] <technomensch> andrew, would you be game to look at the templates to see if you can get a model working?
[22:02] <andrew_sayers> Sure.  Would it be better if we talk this through between ourselves after the meeting?
[22:03] <technomensch> nod
[22:03] <mdke> andrew_sayers: that sounds reasonably sensible, but presentationally, I think the spec needs to have some simple introductory explanation so that the concept is immediately clear
[22:03] <technomensch> glad ot have a partner in crime
[22:03] <mdke> good stuff
[22:03] <mdke> it will be nice to sort out the use of categories
[22:03] <Rocket2DMn> Ok, well this project sounds like it could work out once we get some clearer explanations and solid examples
[22:04] <Shane_Fagan> agreed
[22:04] <Rocket2DMn> I can take the task to go clean out the old conflicting projects if you want
[22:04] <mdke> [ACTION] technomensch and andrew_sayers to work on developing the specification further in light of feedback provided
[22:04] <MootBot> ACTION received:  technomensch and andrew_sayers to work on developing the specification further in light of feedback provided
[22:04]  * Rocket2DMn is trigger happy with the delete button
[22:04] <technomensch> rocket, yes, that would be a good project for the beginners team
[22:05] <mdke> that sounds like quite a job
[22:05] <Rocket2DMn> technomensch, it wouldnt really be a BT thing, they don't have the privileges to do that
[22:05] <mdke> so awesome, Rocket2DMn gets it :)
[22:05] <technomensch> but they can at least "mark for deletion" :)
[22:06] <Rocket2DMn> thats true technomensch , though its probably just as easy for me to find them myself.  I'd much rather have BT people writing real documentation
[22:06] <mdke> [ACTION] Rocket2DMn to review existing projects for categorising wiki pages, identify abandoned ones and do some serious cleanup
[22:06] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Rocket2DMn to review existing projects for categorising wiki pages, identify abandoned ones and do some serious cleanup
[22:06] <Rocket2DMn> I can brief you guys later on the Summer of Documentation if youre interested
[22:07] <Rocket2DMn> we should finish our agenda first though
[22:07]  * mdke nods
[22:07] <DougieRichardson> I think that might be an idea.
[22:07] <technomensch> just as long as it isn't the "Fall of Documentation"  <<rimshot>>
[22:07] <mdke> next topic
[22:07] <mdke> [TOPIC] Discussion about automating answers to common questions
[22:07] <Rocket2DMn> well played technomensch
[22:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discussion about automating answers to common questions
[22:07] <mdke> andrew_sayers: you're up :)
[22:08] <andrew_sayers> Okay, so there've been a few conversations on the ML lately around support and documentation...
[22:08] <andrew_sayers> Automating support issues, turning common support issues into documentation, etc.
[22:08] <andrew_sayers> And there's all sorts of ways we can look at it, but it depends on how much interest there is from people.
[22:09] <Rocket2DMn> o/
[22:09] <Shane_Fagan> Well there is a list of FAQs on launchpad can we take some of those.
[22:09] <Rocket2DMn> thats a raised hand for a question
[22:09] <andrew_sayers> Rocket2DMn: shoot.
[22:09] <Rocket2DMn> Actually, not really a question, but more of a comment
[22:09] <Rocket2DMn> Based on work that I've done on the forums, there have been attempts to create generic responses, or automate answers to questions
[22:10] <Rocket2DMn> It has never really worked b/c every problem can be a little bit different.
[22:10] <DougieRichardson> o/
[22:10] <Rocket2DMn> I think the best way to answer people's "generic" questions is simply to write good, clear, and accessible documentation, which is what we alreday try to do
[22:10] <Rocket2DMn> Then point users to it when they ask
[22:11]  * mdke nods
[22:11] <mdke> there are already quite a few projects like this, I think
[22:11] <DougieRichardson> That's an interesting observation rocket2dmn because it appears to me that repeat questions are the most common questions on the forums.
[22:11] <andrew_sayers> If you can get the manpower for that, that's fine, although the question then is how to actually get people to look at the documentation.
[22:11] <Rocket2DMn> yeah DougieRichardson , that is true.  In which case we document it on the wiki and direct users to it
[22:12] <mdke> we have the ubottu for irc faqs, launchpad and https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CommonQuestions
[22:12] <Shane_Fagan> It would be good if ubottu could point to FAQs on launchpad too
[22:12] <andrew_sayers> This doesn't fit into a wider narrative, but it's worth pointing out that users' initial questions can be fairly information-free...
[22:13] <mdke> andrew_sayers: in terms of your reference in the agenda item to irc, do you think the existing bot does a bad job or could be improved?
[22:13] <DougieRichardson> rocket2dmn - support goes beyond the forums though - signposting strikes me as a good idea, in this case you can direct people to one page rather than a bunch
[22:13] <andrew_sayers> Ranging from "can I ask a question" to "my sound doesn't work, what do I do?".  An automated system that gets them to better questions could have some value.
[22:13] <mdke> (http://ubottu.com/factoids.cgi for a list of the automated responses)
[22:14] <mdke> those do a pretty good job at pointing at the authoritative doc for a particular subject
[22:14] <andrew_sayers> mdke: I think the existing bot is useful for a particular job, but I'm thinking of something different for this...
[22:14] <Rocket2DMn> DougieRichardson, isn't that the point of the homepages of h.u.c. and the system docs?
[22:14] <DougieRichardson> rocket2dmn yes but are you saying that they couldn't be improved?
[22:15] <Rocket2DMn> not at all DougieRichardson , we are always looking for ways to improve
[22:15] <mdke> andrew_sayers: I think that if you have ideas for improving the irc experience, the best way to get them implemented or discussed is to explain them to the irc team
[22:15] <DougieRichardson> rocket2dmn then I can't see the issue, signposting is an improvement to the current front page
[22:16] <andrew_sayers> mdke: The existing bot automates the process of writing an answer once an informed human has decided on it, but doesn't take people out of the equation at all.
[22:16] <mdke> andrew_sayers: you mean it's based on a trigger?
[22:16] <andrew_sayers> And that it doesn't try to guess things based on input from question-askers.
[22:16] <mdke> right
[22:16] <Rocket2DMn> DougieRichardson, I would support improving the front page(s) of documentation, I just don't want to see it as a new/separate project
[22:17] <DougieRichardson> rocket2dmn neither do I - where is that written?
[22:17] <Rocket2DMn> I gathered that Signpost was a new/separate project.  Have I misunderstood?
[22:18] <mdke> andrew_sayers: #ubuntu might get a bit crowded though if there was a lot of bot chatter without specific human triggering, but it's something to be suggested to the irc team
[22:18] <andrew_sayers> Actually, I think starting with IRC is looking at it the wrong way to look at it - the issue is to see whether and how we can get more productivity out of a fixed number of supporters/support channels.  Whether that goes on IRC, the web, or something else comes later.
[22:18] <technomensch> any good ideas over on the brainstorm?
[22:19] <Shane_Fagan> Maybe if the bot sends the message privately to the person who asks the question
[22:19] <DougieRichardson> rocket2dmn As discussed on the mailing list, that isn't necessarily the case, at least not the entire project
[22:19] <DougieRichardson> brb switching laptops.
[22:19] <Rocket2DMn> Ok, I must have missed that discussion, I was on vacation for a few weeks.  Sorry, I guess I'm just not up to speed.
[22:21] <andrew_sayers> Rocket2DMn: the Signpost as a new non-documentation project, but the doc team expressed more interest than expected, so it's on the agenda next :)
[22:21] <andrew_sayers> Er, the signpost *started* as a new non-documentation project...
[22:22] <Rocket2DMn> Ah ok, I see.  Yeah, I agree that the homepage needs some work.  I wouldn't oversimplify it, but it could use some color and better organization
[22:22] <andrew_sayers> Okay, so I think it might be good to put differently the question I wanted to ask...
[22:23] <andrew_sayers> a) There's currently a lot of duplication of effort in the support forums.
[22:23] <Shane_Fagan> andrew_sayers: +1 there
[22:23] <technomensch> esp when cross-referenced with existing documentation
[22:23] <andrew_sayers> b) Worse still, duplicate answers questions lead to a multitude of answers, some of which bad.
[22:24] <andrew_sayers> c) A sufficiently frequently-asked question is by definition a support issue.
[22:24] <Rocket2DMn> Ok, now you're really stepping into my realm of experience :)  I can address each of those points
[22:25] <Shane_Fagan> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+faqs
[22:25] <Rocket2DMn> a) Absolutely there is.  However, this isn't necessarily bad.  Supporters often reference existing documentation and combine it with their own experience to provide answers to questions.
[22:25] <andrew_sayers> So would people be interested in spending time on finding ways to reduce the duplication of effort, and to get people to actually read the previous answers?
[22:26] <Rocket2DMn> What did you have in mind for that andrew_sayers ?  In my experience ,people are going to come and ask questions, regardless of whehter its already documented
[22:26] <Shane_Fagan> Rocket2DMn: in my experience they do that
[22:26] <mdke> andrew_sayers: that's a totally loaded question - you can't answer it "no"
[22:26] <Rocket2DMn> b) You're talking about quality control.  This is extremely difficult to manipulate except through continuing efforts to educate users
[22:27] <mdke> it's what we do as the documentation team
[22:27] <technomensch> as someone who works in tech support, I can definitely state that people will definitely not look for the doc if there is an easy place to go ask for help
[22:27] <mdke> i.e. aim to produce reliable and definitive answers which can be used in the support arena
[22:27] <Rocket2DMn> +1 mdke , many of the forum regulars rely heavily on existng documentation and direct users to them when applicable
[22:28] <mdke> but reading the Flowq page, it's much more
[22:28] <andrew_sayers> Rocket2DMn: Depends on how much interest there is from other people.  The three solutions I have right now are the signpost, a system for searching old #ubuntu logs, or a "20 questions" system, which would let you type your question in and try to match it with an answer.
[22:28] <DougieRichardson> +1 technomensch
[22:28] <Rocket2DMn> andrew_sayers, in response to c) absolutely, and we do try to document common problems.  Preferably this goes onto wiki pages, but also tends to go into forum guides and howtos
[22:29] <Rocket2DMn> +1 technomensch
[22:29] <Shane_Fagan> technomensch: +1
[22:29] <Rocket2DMn> andrew_sayers, i like the idea of updating the front page of the help wiki (which is part of Signpost I guess)
[22:29] <andrew_sayers> mdke: I'm not making myself clear.  I'm not asking for interest in providing answers, but in developing new platforms and/or modifying current platforms to get answers to people.
[22:29] <Rocket2DMn> Your second point about searching old #ubuntu logs probably won't work well because things change, and if you've ever been in #ubuntu, you've seen how chaotic that is
[22:30] <Rocket2DMn> however, i think i have heard of attempts to use irc logs to gather such information
[22:30] <mdke> andrew_sayers: right. But the idea that all Ubuntu support resource (irc, Launchpad, forums, whatever) can improve by using flowchart methodology is quite an ambitious one
[22:30] <Rocket2DMn> finally, you're "20 questions" systems sounds like a FAQ page
[22:30] <andrew_sayers> About searching #ubuntu - maybe, although presenting just a single conversation *might* be possible.
[22:31] <mdke> andrew_sayers: have you been in touch with the Launchpad developers about it? I think that is the arena which would be most susceptible to ideas
[22:32] <Shane_Fagan> Maybe if launchpad could suggest the answer from the FAQ
[22:32] <technomensch> I think we're starting to get into a seemantic web search discussion, where such a search engine for plain english answers is not yet available.
[22:32] <andrew_sayers> The "flowchart" and "20 questions" models can both be seen as search interfaces to a FAQ, if you want to see it that way.
[22:33] <Shane_Fagan> well it wouldnt take much effort to write a search of IRC logs forum treads and questions on launchpad
[22:34] <andrew_sayers> mdke: To answer your specific question, I've not contacted the LP guys yet because I'm not yet sure what the proposal would be.  It depends on whether it's just me, or other people too.
[22:35] <Shane_Fagan> andrew_sayers: Id support anything that would streamline ubuntu answers
[22:36] <Shane_Fagan> so ill help you out with it if you want
[22:36] <popey> andrew_sayers: i have been trying to work on something similar, separately for a few months
[22:36] <popey> andrew_sayers: so I'd be happy to help if I could
[22:37] <mdke> andrew_sayers: my initial reaction is that although there might be ways to improve the specific support resources available, this is so ambitious an idea that it would be pretty complex to apply over the different resources available
[22:37] <Rocket2DMn> well if you had to ask me about answers.launchpad.net, I think it should just redirect to ubuntuforums.org :)  I really do think it is a duplicate resource.  That said, I think the users who provide support on LP usually give better answers
[22:37] <mdke> andrew_sayers: and the social issues of trying to convince the different resources to change their methodology are likely to be also pretty steep :)
[22:38] <andrew_sayers> Thanks Shane.  So how about this for an action - Shane, Popey and I go and work out something simple, that can be implemented in a few weeks.  When that's done, we show it off and see if we can get some interest.  If so, we'll start work on a bigger, bolder version 2, with more ambition?
[22:38] <andrew_sayers> Also, thanks popey :)
[22:38] <popey> np
[22:38] <DougieRichardson> +1
[22:38] <Shane_Fagan> Sure
[22:38] <mdke> Rocket2DMn: yes, that was my feeling also when it started. I think that Mark's idea is to see if features can be developed that go beyond the usual web forum idea
[22:38] <Rocket2DMn> mdke, I can see that.  For instance, I like the highlighting of answers that are marked as the one that solved the problem.  Bug, I digress.
[22:39] <mdke> Rocket2DMn: drawing on the other areas of Launchpad and so on
[22:39] <mdke> andrew_sayers: ok, agreed
[22:39] <Rocket2DMn> yeah, it is nice to convert bugs -> questions, file them under packages, etc
[22:39] <technomensch> matt, you mean andrew
[22:39]  * mdke nods at Rocket2DMn 
[22:39] <mdke> technomensch: huh?
[22:40] <technomensch> "I think that Mark's idea is to see if features can be developed that go beyond the usual web forum idea"
[22:40] <mdke> technomensch: I was referring to the Launchpad Answers project
[22:40] <technomensch> I was only saying that this whole concept sounded like the seamantic web concept
[22:40] <technomensch> oh
[22:40] <technomensch> oopsie
[22:40] <Rocket2DMn> I don't think LP answers would work on a large scale - most people don't care to be that close to the development arena.  They just want their problem fixed - they don't care about what package it applies to, or interfacing directly with developers
[22:41] <Rocket2DMn> you would get a drop in quality if too many people started using it
[22:41] <andrew_sayers> I suspect LP answers is more useful for small projects, where people in the know don't use the forums.
[22:42] <mdke> [ACTION] Shane, Popey and I go and work out something simple, that can be implemented in a few weeks.  When that's done, we show it off and see if we can get some interest.  If so, we'll start work on a bigger, bolder version 2, with more ambition
[22:42] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Shane, Popey and I go and work out something simple, that can be implemented in a few weeks.  When that's done, we show it off and see if we can get some interest.  If so, we'll start work on a bigger, bolder version 2, with more ambition
[22:42] <mdke> damn
[22:42] <Rocket2DMn> yeah andrew_sayers , that is a good point.  It can work well for projects hosted on LP, but not for Ubuntu in general
[22:42] <mdke> [ACTION] Shane, Popey and andrew_sayers go and work out something simple, that can be implemented in a few weeks.  When that's done, we show it off and see if we can get some interest.  If so, we'll start work on a bigger, bolder version 2, with more ambition
[22:42] <Shane_Fagan> Ok good
[22:42] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Shane, Popey and andrew_sayers go and work out something simple, that can be implemented in a few weeks.  When that's done, we show it off and see if we can get some interest.  If so, we'll start work on a bigger, bolder version 2, with more ambition
[22:43] <mdke> ok, let's move on
[22:43] <mdke> maybe one last agenda item, the meeting has been going awhile :)
[22:43] <Shane_Fagan> +1
[22:43] <mdke> [TOPIC] Discussion about the new draft of the HUC front page, which adds the Ubuntu Signpost, and removes a lot of other content
[22:43] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discussion about the new draft of the HUC front page, which adds the Ubuntu Signpost, and removes a lot of other content
[22:44] <Shane_Fagan> I think this has already been covered ?
[22:44] <andrew_sayers> I hope this won't take too long.  Basically, what are the remaining objections to updating the front page?
[22:44] <mdke> none here
[22:44] <DougieRichardson> nor here
[22:44] <Shane_Fagan> nope
[22:44] <andrew_sayers> Okay, that was easy :)
[22:45] <technomensch> <<hits saples button>>
[22:45] <Shane_Fagan> mdke: maybe 1 more topic
[22:45] <mdke> I'll reply on the list to andrew_sayers' last post because I'd like to develop a bit further the structural ideas of the signpost
[22:45] <mdke> but it's too long for this evening I think
[22:45] <mdke> Shane_Fagan: yeah
[22:45] <andrew_sayers> mdke: update the front page in the meantime, or not?
[22:45] <mdke> andrew_sayers: yeah, sure
[22:46] <andrew_sayers> Right, good.  Structure etc. may depend on the result of the previous item.
[22:46] <mdke> [TOPIC] Discussion of the use of screencasts in Ubuntu documentation, and the future of screencasts.ubuntu.com
[22:46] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discussion of the use of screencasts in Ubuntu documentation, and the future of screencasts.ubuntu.com
[22:46] <popey> this could be a long one
[22:46] <popey> I dont mind bumping to the next meeting given how late it is
[22:46] <popey> or take it back to the list
[22:46]  * popey is easy
[22:46] <technomensch> I motion this be moved to its own separate meeting at a later time
[22:46] <Shane_Fagan> Maybe move it to the list
[22:47]  * DougieRichardson nods
[22:47] <mdke> alright
[22:47] <mdke> just to note that there has always been a lot of enthusiasm for integrating screencasts with the docs
[22:47] <popey> i can mail the list with the "vision" I have for screencasts in ubuntu docs and we can take it from there?
[22:47] <Rocket2DMn> sounds good to me
[22:47] <mdke> popey: great idea
[22:47] <Shane_Fagan> popey: +1
[22:47] <Daviey> prediscussion can't be a bad thing :)
[22:48] <popey> thanks for your input Daviey :)
[22:48] <mdke> [ACTION] popey to email the list with his vision for screencasts in the docs
[22:48] <MootBot> ACTION received:  popey to email the list with his vision for screencasts in the docs
[22:48] <Daviey> popey: :)
[22:48] <Shane_Fagan> Id like to get involved in the screencasts team too
[22:48] <mdke> I think implementing screencasts in the docs will be the easy part
[22:49] <mdke> the hard part is the screencast project itself, I guess
[22:49] <popey> yup
[22:49] <technomensch> it's the actually making the screecasts that would be hard part
[22:49] <Shane_Fagan> mdke: so is that it?
[22:49] <mdke> right
[22:49] <mdke> hmm?
[22:49] <Shane_Fagan> The end of the meeting
[22:49] <mdke> ah, for the meeting
[22:50] <mdke> yes, let's wrap it up, unless there are objections
[22:50] <andrew_sayers> Actually, one quick thing - Shane_Fagan and popey, how would you prefer for us to talk?
[22:50] <popey> however, I'm everywhere
[22:50] <Shane_Fagan> Email for me
[22:50] <mdke> popey is the most online person around
[22:50] <popey> :)
[22:51] <Daviey> mdke: popey is made up of 3 people.
[22:51] <Rocket2DMn> lol
[22:51] <popey> Daviey: I know it may _look_ like that..
[22:51] <mdke> that's what I figured
[22:51] <technomensch> in 3 dif time zones even
[22:51] <mdke> covers all the timezones
[22:51] <mdke> #endmeeting
[22:51] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:51.