Karen Collier - Kent County Public Library, Yamil Suarez - Berklee College of Music, Kathy Lussier - MassLNC, Chris Sharp - GPLS, Ben Shum - Bibliomation, Robert Soulliere - Mohawk College, Jason Etheridge - Equinox, Adam Bowling - Indiana State Library, Tim Spindler - C/W MARS
Yamil Suarez - Completed multiple test EG 2.1.1 clean installations using the README based instructions. Again, thanks to Dan Scott and Robert Soulliere the Downloads page and the official Docs both have the same content.
Kathy Lussier - There is a lot of interest in getting 2.1. documentation up. I'll send out a message to the list this week seeking volunteers. I have a bit I can contribute, but it needs to be generalized for the community. There is also some 2.1 end-user documentation that ESI released that I am anxious to include in the official docs. I don't know what steps need to be taken to get those docs in there. (Jason Etheridge added that there will be wordage on our website soon granting a CC-BY-SA license to DIG for such documents)
Robert Soullier -I have set up 2.1 DocBook Documentation processing – HTML and PDF (see http://docs.evergreen-ils.org/2.1/html/). It is not linked from docs page yet. I had asked a few folks to review and provide feedback on the key chapters. Installation instructions are taken from the REDME file packaged with Evergreen code. DocBook processing pulls from the 2.1 branch of the Documentation repository. It is pretty bare bones at this time with Release notes, installation instructions, and upgrade instructions as well as some of the appendices. If you have some documentation or know if some sources who can share please make a note on the 2.1 outline: http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=evergreen-docs_2.1:outline. If you have "raw" documentation (not in DocBook XML format) but have trouble converting, please share the documentation with the DIG list so we can help convert and make a note on the outline.
Ben Shum asked "At what point should some of us suggest specific wiki drafts to be converted into docbook for inclusion?" No clear answer was provided. Should we have a specific process?
Tim Spindler asked "I had a question, does the documentation from 1.6 or 2.0 that is still valid get moved up to 2.1?" Robert Soulliere indicated he was hoping folks could make notes on the outline indicating which docs can be moved "as is". Kathly Lussier indicated that she was thinking when I put out my call for volunteers for OPAC/staff sections, I would ask for new documentation and a review of the old to see what could be moved up.
Chris Sharpe indicated that the developers discussed ways to help DIG get a head start on docs for each upcoming release (at Friday's meeting). Robert Soulliere indicated he was considering switching to use all ASCII docs starting with v.2.2 as a way to get developers documentation over. Chris indicated that there's an absence of technical people who want to write and the end users aren't always technical enough to write authoritatively about the features. Yamil indicated that ASCII docs might be a way to bridge the gap. Robert asked "Do you think we need to have a bare mimimum set of official docs which should be developed at release time for each evergreen release?" Dan Scott indicated that a documentation checklist could be added into the "Release Team" process.
Yamil also suggested a "documentation sprint" similar to a hackfest that could be done online and/or at the conference to try and make some progress in creating documentation. There was general support for this. Dan Scott comments "Google hosted a doc sprint (covering travel & accommodations near Google campus) for a few projects this fall; could think about targeting that for next year for in-the-flesh sprint (no guarantee of course)." Ben Shum will check the possibility and how a doucmentation sprint might fit into the conference schedule.
Wednesday, January 18, 2PM EST