Hi, 
I've been reading this thread, and my feelings are somewhat split.
On reflection, as a general idea, I like the idea of having the docs
on a wiki, because of the easy availability and searching of all the
content. In the fairly near future, LibO's built-in help is going to
be wiki-based. If I'm not mistaken about the plans, it will be
available within LibO via an interface that fetches from the Web
initially and then stores locally.
MSO and Windows has this functionality, and it makes updates easy to provide.
Production-side, it could work if the basic formatting of content is
kept simple and complies with some production guidelines.
If we agreed on that, we could be up and working quickly.
I do think we should try to use the material currently available from
OOo as a starting point, and should then start writing on our own. In
the not-so-far future, the UIs of LibO and OOo are going to diverge to
such a point that there won't be sufficient commonality to make it
worthwhile trying to write "one size fits all" docs anyway.
But:
1) The formatting you can do on a wiki is quite rudimentary. And
manual. The writer is faced with the task of being a typesetter at the
same time. And the editor has to tread carefully between all the
mark-up.
The style sheets currently available on the TDF wiki are quite
rudimentary, and would need some
adaptation/enhancement/reconfiguration.
2) I've been summarily investigating the availability of workflow
management extensions for MediaWiki and haven't found what I hoped
for.
Nevertheless, one *could* use the concept of group access to partially
manage roles/permissions, combined with a previously-laid-down set of
agreed procedures. Even so, basically it would be quite a "manual"
process that depends a lot on the discipline and cooperation of the
team contributors.
Speaking personally, I'm not too much into the idea of "throwing the
doors open to the world" to get people writing, because *quality* is
likely to take a steep dive, or to create a big post-editing workload.
One thing we've got with the material that Jean and Ron have been
porting is *truly professional-quality* documentation in terms of the
copy (I'm not thinking about the presentation, which is also up to the
same level). And my ambition for the LibO project is to maintain that
high quality.
3) Michael is very keen on using Drupal as the team's tool. I "have a
date" with him this week to evaluate what he already has available,
and to hear/see - in concrete terms bereft of hype and jargon - what
could be developed. My past experience with CMS products tells me that
Drupal certainly *could potentially* provide the docs team with tools.
But I'm uncertain about who's going to do the development, and about
the current progress and expected readiness deadline of that
development.
We need a working system *quickly*, so that we can stop debating on
the list and actually start producing documentation.
4) Jean has oooauthors.org up and running. I've not taken time out to
see the workflow organization much, but I'm pretty sure she's got
something acceptable that's already operational.
I must say that it rather gets in my face that it's branded OOo and
not LibO, but never mind. I would also prefer it to be a TDF/LibO
resource, too, but it's not. However, it does have the advantage that
*it exists and works*.
Aside from oooauthors, we don't have *any* automated workflow for
working with ODF/ODT files (even though they are in many ways a better
starting point for conversions and excellent presentation).
So, as you can see, the issue of "wiki, ODT or Drupal" is very much a
swings and roundabouts thing.
But I'm starting to drift towards wiki and a Web-based documentation
that we then also export to PDF, and that is easily consultable by our
users *now*. It's the quickest operational solution, barring Jean's
oooauthors.
I'm trying to figure out a workflow that uses the TDF wiki. I've been
working on some Linux installation instructions, and on the TDF
community bylaws, which has taken most of the free time I have to give
the project. But I'll be having some more time in the next few days.
I'm very impatient to get to a point at which I can actually start
*producing documentation*. I'm hoping that we're all going to arrive
at a consensus quickly, and that we're not all going to be pulling in
different directions like a herd of cats.
So much time is wasting, and we have *so little* documentation ready
for our users...
I think we need to choose an acting team lead to direct things. I
asked Jean, but she's not willing.
I'm offering to take on the role myself.
Would I have your support and cooperation for that? Or are there other
candidates?
I'm hoping that as many of you as possible will respond one way or another...
Over to you guys.
David Nelson