Restructuring techbase and userbase

[Stephen Kelly]

Mark Ziegler wrote: 
>> > A thing I would like to talk about is the future of Userbase. Should it
>> > be the home (website) for some apps like skanlite or lokalize. I spoke
>> > to the authors and they like the idea. We discussed that in our
>> > september meeting, but there was no decision.
>>
>> Yes, I also like the idea. Many applications already have a page there.
> I know, but both projects I mentionend have no website at all.
> Should we use Userbase to keep all stuff a website normally includes like
> news, announcements, download, roadmap, user docs? Technical stuff should
> be in techbase then? Does it means to have at least one page in each base
> for one app?

Well, yes. But I wouldn't suggest creating a lot of those pages using a
script. Rather, have a structure which makes it obvious to an interested
person where the right place is for that page and what belongs on the page.
If there's currently no page for a users favourite app, they can create it. 

In terms of what belongs on a userbase page, I would say
* A screenshot
* What you use the application to do.
* Link to the user docs on docs.kde.org.
* Links to whatever tips exist on userbase for it. {{:Skanlite/Tips}}
* At the bottom a link to techbase if someone wants to contribute to the
app. Obviously if there is no techbase page for it, there's no need for the
link. We could use {{TechbaseLink}} or something with a magic word to
create the link using the apps name. That would only work if apps were top
level pages on techbase though.
* For apps in the offical kde modules, there's no need for download, news or
announcements section. But if the app maintainer wants to put them there,
so be it. Reallt, only things related to using the app or getting the most
out of it should be on userbase.
* Roadmap stuff belongs on techbase I think. Everything around contributing
to the app or development of it should be on techbase. 

> 
>> > I stopped contributing to userbase
>> > because I miss some guidelines for userbase. What should be in.
>>
>> Well lets talk about it now. I think what should be in
>> userbase.kde.org/$APPName is a screenshot, a description, a list of
>> tutorials on userbase for that app if there are any. We could probably be
>> quite consistent about how they look by using templates.
> I would vote for it. Lets work on skanlie for example.

Sure, we'll see what we can do.

> 
>> > The promo people missing a place to provide slides, movies, managing
>> > events. Will we have onther wiki? Than we need to spent time on
>> > cleaning up techbase and moving content.
>>
>> I don't see any reason they couldn't go on techbase. If techbase is
>> about 'contributing to kde' then slides made and delivered by promo
>> people belong there IMO.
> 
> There was a thread on te promo list if I am right with some good arguments
> not to use techbase. Wait ... searchig ... here we go:
> http://www.nabble.com/Adding-a-section-Promo-to-TechBase--td21137055.html
> 
> They wanna have a spot for the show :-)
> 
> The gnome link looks sophisticated.

To be honest I didn't see any argument not to use techbase. I saw the fact
that the promo team doesn't currently use techbase for that kind of
material and the thought that maybe there will be another wiki for this
stuff. If another wiki is good enough, I don't see why techbase isn't good
enough along with techbase.kde.org/Promotion. I think this means that the
current structure of techbase does not make it obvious where promo people
should put their content. Other people within the promo team are interested
in having some promo material on techbase:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.events/9275

Something which I need to follow up on.

The gnome link is also just a wiki page with links to resources. There is a
section for kickstart marketing ([[Contibutor_Paths/Promotion]]),
resources, tasks (Promotion/Projects), people and communication, which
would fit on [[Promotion]].

> 
>> Cheers for the response. I do think you should reconsider the proposal of
>> reorganizing techbase, or else we should start to create some
>> documentation on what the structure is and where new stuff should go.
> Ack.
> 
>> I do have more ideas on that, but writing these kind of emails can be a
>> lot of effort, and not worth it if the response is only going to be 'No
>> restructuring' anyway.
> Hahaha. Sounds like you did it before ;-)

Well, I get mixed results when trying to champion things like this, yeah.

Cheers,

Steve

> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
>