Re: Re: Scala Community Petition

I'm going to repeat what I said on the petition page here:

"I don't see any reason why a core committer would even need to be
tasked for this. All we need is a couple of users who are capable of
distinguishing good/bad correct/incorrect documentation. They could
commit the changes directly."

We already have the volunteers. People are already interested. There
is just no one to manage them and make use of them.
Everyone I've talked to about contributing to Scala (including current
contributors) had to be rebuffed or ignored half a dozen times before
they got something in. For someone who "just wants to help" (i.e. is
looking for a task instead of doing one in advance) it's straight up
impossible.

Anyway, I feel my tone drifting a little toward negativity ... which
is not at all what I'm trying to convey. This problem is eminently
fixable. And from what I've heard, Typesafe is already working on it.
Just not publicly.

Yuvi

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Chris Marshall wrote:
> It seems self-evident that bad documentation is worse than no documentation
> (or at least equivalently bad). Hence someone would have to painstakingly
> check your documentation and in particular any examples contained therein
> for correctness. As it's a reasonable assumption that the lack of
> documentation in the first place (which, in any case, is these days is not
> as much of a problem as it once was) is down to the available time of the
> scala committers, it follows that there's a good chance they won't have time
> to check any documentation which is "externally" provided.
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Yuvi Masory wrote:
>>
>> > It may not be the sexiest part of work but that's exactly what Scala
>> > eco-system is badly missing right now - the true commercial quality of
>> > software engineering that starts right from basic documentation.
>>
>> I think writing documentation is sexy, but why would I even bother if
>> it will never get merged in?
>>
>> Yuvi
>
>