-
Grégoire Lecerf
Joris van der Hoeven
Joris van der Hoeven
mailing-list for TeXmacs Users
Text archives Help
From : Giovanni Piredda <address@hidden>- To: TeXmacs <address@hidden>
- Subject: Re: Blog
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:32:52 +0100
Your arguments are fair. Let us work on the blog and let us see it develop.
A section on misconceptions could also be ok.
I would also like to hear your opinion on putting an accent on user-developed extensions (including making it easier for other users to find them by providing a collection of articles which link to repositories, and encouraging authors to submit them). It seems to me that the extensibility of TeXmacs should be used more; moreover, it automatically sets a distance ("plugin", "extension") between the core software and the extensions, so that hosting an article about an extension does not mean endorsing the extension, which remains under the responsibility of its author.
For example it would be very nice if someone would write an extension for chemistry, or to give more ways to input colors (what I have found so far is named colors and html codes: are there any others?). These quite complex things could happen more easily if there is a "base" of simpler extensions written by users.
G.
On 11.11.20 14:12, Massimiliano Gubinelli wrote:
Giovanni,
well, developers here means me (:)). Again, I'm open to discussion but personally I
do not think that a wiki in the style of wikipedia will work (it is questionable also
if it works for wikipedia). In the scientific community the accepted way of
communicating is via "curated" journals after peer-review, and it also seems
appropriate to me here.
There should be someone (the editors) who put her/his "face" in guaranteeing
that the material is interesting and useful. That is the only reason somebody would
like to spend time reading it.
If you have ever read places like stack-exchange you would realise that
sometimes the users suggest to other users wrong methods to solve problems
and if there is no more knowledgeable people around then these errors sticks
and are propagated around.
Also the "editors" help the contributors to focus their material and make it
accessible. TeXmacs is still a small project and I do not think there will be problems in
filtering the contributions. I see the development of the blog as the development of a piece of
code, you do not want to develop code in a "wiki" style.
What happens to me often is that a new user want feature X implemented,
because it exists in software Y, Z or W, without taking time to appreciate
the internal logic of TeXmacs or the design tradeoffs and motivations.
Sometimes users think that something can be done in some way, but they do not
see that there is an easier way.
Moderation help to remove common misconception. It would also be useful to have a page
on that: "Common misconceptions of newly arrived users" :)
But again, I think the forum and the mailing list are the right place for
discussions. The blog is for mature content which should not be difficult to
moderate efficiently and favour contributions as much as possible.
Max
On 11. Nov 2020, at 13:56, Giovanni Piredda <address@hidden> wrote:
If a curated blog is the one developers see most fit, then I am going to
support it even if my initial preference was for a wiki mostly controlled by
the users.
Still I think that support for exchange of packages and style files among
users would be good (strong benefits could come from this). The blog can do
it by publishing articles where users describe their own extensions, with a
link to a repository, and organizing these articles into collections.
G.
Am 11.11.2020 um 09:38 schrieb Massimiliano Gubinelli:
Dear all,
I've added some guidelines for proposing content for the blog
(https://texmacs.github.io/notes/index.html).
You can find them
here:https://texmacs.github.io/notes/editorial-guidelines.html
I tend to think that the correct contribution system is a "curated" one for
many reasons:
1) technical: the addition have to be post-processes by knowledgeable people
to ensure that the HTML translation is acceptable and nice.
2) editorial: we want this place to be useful and meaningful. To me the right approach
is to consider it a "publication" where there is somebody (an editor board)
which cares about homogeneity and quality. So a bit of centralization. This agrees with
the fact that TeXmacs itself (i.e. Joris :)) is very opinionated on design choices and
aim.
3) decentralization: the fact that is a git repository means that it still
remains de-centralized to a large extent: if you want you can clone the
repository and publish the material in **any way** you like. Like software
this material will be open source, for all to use as they see fit.
I feel that the editorial policy do not restrict your freedom as content contributor:
if you have a github account is very easy to publish your own better version as
"github pages".
Anyway I'm open to discuss it, my intention is that it is
useful/informative/correct/pleasant to read, this should be the primary goal.
Max
- Blog, Massimiliano Gubinelli, 11/11/2020
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.
