Very often I see things I'd like to fix/improve in the documentation and lots of the time I look at the top of the page and I don't have access. So that's the first reason: general ability to edit more pages.

Second reason is a very concrete desperate need to improve the CVS application documentation:
http://drupal.org/cvs-application/requirements

It might look OK, but it is clearly not working, because again and again and again I see people applying for CVS access who have not (for example) run Coder against their module. I understand that you might say, "yes, but the documentation is OK, people are not reading it", but I think I have a solution.

I would like to add a serious of pre-check pages, which people would go to when the click on "Apply for a CVS account". The first page would (for example) be a "Have you actually got a module ready to submit?" page with explanation of why this is wanted, . At the bottom of the page, would be a "No - please explain" link and a "Yes - Go to next application step" link. On the "No" page would be guidance where to find extra info etc.

The final page in the series would take the user to the current application form page.

Intermediate pages might include:

  • Do you have a module to submit?
  • Have you run your module through coder?
  • Is your module properly documented for both non-tech admin (e.g. with a README.txt) and programmers?
  • Is your module themeable?

Comments

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

Looking forward to someone dealing with this request.

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

Hellooooooooooo???

silverwing’s picture

silverwing commented

regarding the CVS application documentation - that page is developed and maintained by the Webmasters. Check that queue http://drupal.org/project/issues/webmasters for the issues related to that page.

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

Hi, thanks for the suggestion. Have now posted there too:
http://drupal.org/node/981452

avpaderno’s picture

avpaderno
he/him
Primary language Italian
Location Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺
commented

CVS documentation is in full HTML to avoid it gets changed from not authorized users (at least, that is what I understand); in such case, being documentation maintainer doesn't help.

I think that the rule of documentation maintainer is given to users who volunter to improve the documentation pages we have, not just a limited section (somebody else can report if I correctly understood).

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

I don't care what the roles are or what authority I need or what format the pages are. I would like to be able to edit these pages. Would somebody please give me whatever rights I need or point me in the direction of what I need to do to get the necessary rights. Thank you.

lisarex’s picture

lisarex commented

drupalshrek, in order to edit those pages, you would need to apply (and be approved) to a be a site maintainer in the webmasters issue queue. Nobody will just hand over those rights.

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

Hello lisarex,

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, I would like to apply to have whatever rights are needed to be able to edit those pages. If I am approved, I will help. If I am not, I won't.

I have already applied to be a document admin (since that was what the website said I needed to apply for if I there were other pages I couldn't edit).

I have already followed silverwing's suggestion (post #3 here) and applied in the webmasters issues queue, http://drupal.org/node/981452, but that was closed as a duplicate of my issue here: http://drupal.org/node/977336 so clearly wasn't the right thing to do at all, and I should not have wasted my time.

You say I need to apply to be a site maintainer in the webmasters issue queue. Is this other thread going to do that: http://drupal.org/node/977336? Or should I raise another issue which kiamlaluno will close as a duplicate?

I'm going nuts here. What is driving me nuts is being told apply here, apply there, no that's not the right application you need, ah you applied there, no you shouldn't have applied there, no here's not the right place, you need to apply there.....

It should be a very simple issue: I'd like to edit some pages, I've said what pages I'd like to edit, someone somewhere should be able to say yes I can or no I can't edit them. If I can great, if I can't, too bad.

lisarex’s picture

lisarex commented

Hi drupalshrek, sorry this process is frustrating. Any issue that is a request for a change in role needs to be clearly identified as such; it can't include content suggestions too, because those issues have different audiences.

"If I am approved, I will help. If I am not, I won't." - I hope you'll still continue to post issue and contribute that way, even if you don't have a role granted right away. :)

Where to apply? Well, d.o. often separates responsibility for "Documentation" and "non-Documentation" nodes on Drupal.org. Some are maintained by different groups. The instructions aren't always perfect but thanks for drawing attention to it. There are no overnight solutions.

Let's see what the others with more time on d.o. have to say...

arianek’s picture

arianek commented
Status: Active » Postponed (maintainer needs more info)

Hello Drupalshrek -

It's been very busy lately, so we did not get around to evaluating your request until now. The docs admin role (which lets you update these pages) is reserved for very active members of the Documentation Team (http://drupal.org/contribute/documentation/join), and not just given out to everyone who wants to edit the pages.

Others have responded regarding your comments on the CVS process (which we've all been working on improving), but as far as the Docs Admin role, I'm not going to be able to assign it in this case.

If you would like to reapply (by reopening this issue) after working on the Docs Team further, your application will be reconsidered. And please do file issues for any changes you see fit in the Docs issue queue.

Thanks.

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

OK, thanks lisarex and arianek for your posts. At least the situation is now clear: the ability for me to change the pages I would like to change has been declined.

For those of you who do have the ability to make the changes I would like to have done, make them yourself then: I have described in enough detail the work which I think is needed to fix the CVS application documentation :
http://drupal.org/node/977336

To be honest, I don't think it will get done.

It is a big work, and I was ready to do it, but hey, what can I do? If you don't want to give me access to do the work, I can't do it! As I said, if I am approved, I will help. If I am not, I won't. And I am not approved, so I can't help.

That's not to say I won't help on other bits of the documentation. But it does mean that I will not work on the area I am passionate about, the area which I have a vision for how to fix, the area which I care about, the area which I was prepared to put a lot of work into.

I understand from your comment arianak "If you would like to reapply (by reopening this issue) after working on the Docs Team further, your application will be reconsidered." that this is a question of "show that your keen to work on lots of small bits, and we'll grant you access to work on bigger bits". The issue here though is not that I want to start doing larger tasks having reached the limit of smaller tasks; the issue here is that I want to work on Section XYZ and specifically section XYZ. I am not interested in the other sections.

The ironic part of this is that Drupal is supposed to be a CMS. A Content Management System. And it doesn't appear that you have the ability to grant me access just to the content which I would like to manage.

The sad part about this is that everybody loses. I lose, because I am not able to make the CVS Application documentation as good as the vision I have for it. Other document admins lose, because they have more work to do, because they now have to do this work. And the Drupal community loses, because this part of the documentation is likely to remain for a long time in the broken state which it is (as described in my issue on what needs to be done http://drupal.org/node/977336).

arianek’s picture

arianek commented

That looks like the right approach filing the issue about the CVS page changes - you could have filed it here as well, and then I would have reviewed with the CVS folks before making changes. As noted, we (generally prolific contributors) have been working on improving the CVS application process in general for about 6 months, but it is about to be overhauled with the git migration.

The standard method for regular Docs Team members to contribute to changes on locked pages is to post an issue with a link to the page, the suggested text changes, and the rationale for those (if necessary). Docs Team members and admins can then review and decide how to amend the page. You are in no way being singled out here, this is standard procedure. It is your choice whether you still want to work on the changes this way, or if it is too inconvenient for you to consider it worthwhile.

The reason why we don't approve people for Docs Admin role who haven't been actively working on Docs, is because it's necessary to build a level of trust, before someone is given access to edit critical pages of the site. The reason I did not approve the request is two-fold: 1) because of not being familiar with you or your work (or seeing any modules listed as being maintained by your d.o user), and 2) because of your general attitude/impatience on this thread and the CVS one. If those change down the line, as I said, we're more than happy to reevaluate.

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

Thank you for your further explanation.

Regarding "(1) ...not being familiar with you or your work", I would suggest that you simply look at my recent post history and you will see that I have been a dedicated and helpful contributor to Drupal, especially in the area of CVS applications where I wanted to improve the documentation. If you had any problem to find the information you were looking for, you could have asked, and I would have directed you to the most relevant items. If you were concerned about my technical skill, I could have elaborated.

Regarding "(2) ...[my] general attitude/impatience", I can assure you that will not change: I will express frustration and exasperation when I am pushed first one way then another then here and there. I will call it absurd that a project built around a CMS is completely unable to organise content management when that is the case. I will call things a sad loss for everyone when they clearly are. I will speak the truth as I see it. I will try and do so as politely as possible, but I will not refrain from calling a spade a spade to avoid upsetting someone's sensibilities.

I will not be reapplying. The document admin team have therefore thrown away a person who could have worked enthusiastically and keenly on this part of the documentation, who is passionate about Drupal, technically highly skilled (I am an IT consultant), and with an excellent mastery of being able to express things clearly in English.

To quote from the Document team leadership announcement:

Drupal is a collaborative effort, so Ariane and Jennifer would love to have your help working on the documentation. One of their top priorities is to enable others to contribute.

Yeah, right. Well, whatever system you have in place is not working. I've been pushing to try and help on this part of the documentation and am not able to help.

There are many out there who would just love to help improve the documentation, but cannot do so because the pages are locked (see http://drupal.org/node/979648#comment-3758292 for example).

What are you afraid of? That I'm a spammer or vandal? A quick look at the many helpful posts would instantly dismiss that idea. That I don't have a good enough eye for what needs improving? Again I can point out many changes I have made to the pages where I do have access that were clearly helpful.

I don't know all the ins and outs of the documentation process, but it needs fixing, because it's not working; people are desperate to help, and are just not being able to do so. Good luck with fixing whatever needs to be done here.

And what of the alternative route to getting the CVS application documentation fixed, by requesting those with the authority to do the work which I am not given authority to do? It was

Closed -> Won't fix
We are moving away from cvs anyway, we'll not put any more resources into it

(http://drupal.org/node/977336)

So, you have someone on the outside who wants to fix the broken docs who is not let in to do so, while on the inside you have someone who says we're not going to fix it because it takes resources. And the result? The documentation will remain broken. Great.

webchick’s picture

webchick
she/they
Primary language English
Location Vancouver 🇨🇦
commented

You might want to have a look at our Code of Conduct, drupalshrek. The way that you're speaking to folks in here is neither respectful nor considerate.

Also, the pages that have this more stringent level of protection do so because they are community-level pages. We don't want well-meaning people just coming in and editing those as they see fit, because the content on those pages is a really big deal: it informs the very processes and policies of our project and community, and affect, literally, almost everyone.

Consensus on major policy decisions is the way we operate here. The text that's in those pages was built over the years by numerous discussions, and further changes require further consensus-building. This isn't unusual, either. Even Wikipedia, which arguably sets the standard for open and collaborative documentation, semi-protects their major community landing pages to only "established" accounts.

And lest you think this is some sort of nefarious plot to keep lock new people out of setting policy direction (which seems to be what you are alluding to here), I'm a core maintainer, a security team member, a Drupal.org website administrator (with shell access to d.o), a Drupal Association board member, and a bunch of other things. And I still needed to start a discussion in the webmasters queue (#703116: Our CVS account application requirements are obtuse and discourage contributions) and build consensus there before I was allowed to touch the text of the CVS requirements page. Even though there was no technical barrier to stop me. That's just how we operate culturally. Respect.

arianek’s picture

arianek commented
Status: Postponed (maintainer needs more info) » Closed (won't fix)

thanks webchick, well said, and i appreciate the broader explanation.

@drupalshrek - i evaluate each application for docs admin role based on the contributor's *documentation* work (the only exception to that is for module/theme maintainers who want to create/maintain documentation, whose work i am familiar with, or who have another community member vouch for them).

it is completely your choice whether you will contribute within the same parameters everyone else does or not. but since you do not want to reconsider in terms of the docs admin request, i'm moving this to closed/won't fix. but again, if you decide to reevaluate your stance down the line, don't let this stop you from reapplying.

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

OK, I do apologise for speaking in a non-respectful and non-considerate way.

sun’s picture

sun
Primary language German
Location Karlsruhe
commented

webchick really summarized the situation very well.

Although we apply the idea of "do-cracy" to many areas, a few certain topics have too much of an impact on the entire community, so even though there are many contributors that were granted the privileges to change something doesn't mean they can freely do so. For those kind of issues, we are applying the usual rules of democracy -- carefully telling and listening to all arguments in order to figure out the best solution in a team effort. Everyone can participate in those discussions and you do not need special permissions in order to do so.

All of that being said, we highly value your contributions, especially regarding CVS applications reviews!

Building trust-level relationships in an online community is always a matter of evidence, which naturally increases over time. Every single one of us ran through this process on his or her own. Please don't hesitate to re-apply at a later point in time.

Thanks!

drupalshrek’s picture

drupalshrek commented

I will not be reapplying.

I will however be working to try and make it easier for those people who do want to contribute to the documentation to be able to do so. For example:
http://drupal.org/node/979648

Regarding webchick's comment that "the pages that have this more stringent level of protection do so because they are community-level pages" (http://drupal.org/node/976546#comment-3760442), if the http://drupal.org/cvs-application/requirements page were in Wikipedia, it would be editable by anybody with ten or more edits. Wikipedia uses trust in people to control changes; d.o. uses full page protection.

Wikipedia semi-protection only prevents edits from:

  1. anonymous users (IP addresses)
  2. any account that is not at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia

Basically spammers. Everybody else is considered well-meaning and keen to contribute and is allowed to do so.

Even though consensus is required on Wikipedia policy pages (e.g. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy), it is not enforced through physical control as is done on d.o., but is rather enforced through education; if a newbie starts making big changes on a page without consensus, then they will be politely told not to do so without consensus.

There are pages in Wikipedia which are fully protected, but in the hundreds (thousands?) of pages and edits I have made on Wikipedia I don't remember a single page which I was ever not able to edit.

If you are interested in discussing this topic, I would invite you to join in the discussion on the following thread: http://drupal.org/node/979648