Category talk:AWG Design Document
- Any danger of actually discussing what you're doing here Dzon? The sections are no longer editable after what you've done. --Morgaine Dinova 13:09, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
- Please talk to us Dzon, don't just unilaterally turn the wiki into some random HTML junk. When we press Edit, we're meant to be able to edit, not get dumped into some obscure piece of HTML magic. This is what the Talk page is for, to warn of major changes and get them agreed. Or should I revert? --Morgaine Dinova 13:39, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
It appears as though many of these pages are sprawled out versions of existing content. For example, we now have a AWG Agent Domain and an Agent Domain page. Why a whole new set of pages here? -- Rob Linden 18:24, 23 October 2007 (PDT)
- I did make a note about it here: AWG_Design_Document_Template#Goals. Also see, Zero's office hour transcripts: User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2007_Oct_18 (~ 7:48 and further). You'll notice his concern with the AWG articles. I started to use Brainstorming as a first candidate to organize discussions by interest to an aspect of the model. I also wanted to make sure we could separate the previous model with the AWG model, so that terminology does not get confused as easily. Perhaps, I didn't make that part with the actions clear. With the example, Agent Domain included all topics about the Agent Domain, which include the Agent Stores, Agent Hosts, Agent Services, and much more. Each one if specified in detail on a single page can create a really long page, as we started to see when an older version of Brainstorming (v35936). It appeared to sprawl out at length over many topics and subjects even though it was a single page. I noticed a lot of the same interest touched on in various areas on the entire page and also on other pages. There was no way to just pull up a wiki page that relates to a more concise interest and find a flow of discussion about it. Also, I constantly saw the concern that people wanted to jump into some form of implementation. The design documents, with the basic template followed, uses the normal wiki abilities to navigate to different interest of the model and subscribe to that part of discussion. Further, I didn't want to obstruct other documents from being more general or plain presentational; the AWG Design Documents carry more of an intention to disambiguate views, boldy. Dzonatas Sol 19:11, 23 October 2007 (PDT)
- First, a document template is deeply not the place to propose a completely new process, especially when there is a page, linked directly off the AWG main page, which discusses process, and is marked tentative, and invites discussion on the topic. Posting such a process, in extreme detail, with none of the material marked as "proposed" or "tentative" or "suggested", but rather having the appearance of a consensus document is frankly hostile to forming consensus.
- Second, having two sets of pages, which in detail, essence and purpose attempt to describe the same basic concepts, is deeply disruptive to collaboration. Having a template document which suggests a flow through the documents which is alternative to the main entry to the wiki, and leads to pages almost entirely duplicative of the main pages, is simply hostile to forming a single perspective.
If you don't agree with a page in the wiki, on a topic, the normal approach is to post a comment on the talk/discuss page for that topic. Please follow this practice. Forking discussion, and forking it in such that it forms a parallel tree is counterproductive.
Lastly, making it harder to edit pages only makes it harder to hold a discussion. I expect to be able to press the edit tab on a wiki page and edit the page. I expect to see a talk/discuss page that's accessible off the page being edited. I do not expect to have to look into templates to find documents which contain meaning, rather than navigation. Please talk to the group, ideally on the talk pages of the wiki, before making major, complex changes to the wiki structure.
Zha Ewry 18:08, 24 October 2007 (PDT)