[dms-discuss] January Meeting

[Braden]

I am very pro-wiki, for all the reasons Nicholas mentions.

And more generally, I am also pro-plaintext-markup.  In particular, I have quite liked the Markdown-varient syntax that we have been using on the wiki and our documents such as the bylaws.

  - Braden


On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 11:00:12AM -0800, Nicholas Weigand wrote:
> Just my two cents:
> 
> I love github.  That being said, the barrier to understanding for git
> might actually decrease the openness of that solution.
> 
> I'd rather not use a word processor, but if we do go that way let's
> please use something like libreoffice.  Some of us don't have access
> to MS Word!
> 
> The wiki is my preferred solution if we don't use github.  All
> revisions are saved (it's actually backed by git if anyone cares...),
> and you can easily diff two versions of the same page (go to the
> history tab and then drag one version onto the other).  If people want
> to do anything more complicated they can just clone the repo.  It also
> allows for people to use Markdown, or a variety of other markup
> languages.  Basically it seems to answer all of our needs while
> providing low barriers to entry.  And who knows, maybe it will get
> more people actively editing the wiki!
> 
> Anyway, yes, let's discuss this at the meeting.
> 
> Nicholas
> 
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:53 AM, James R Holliday
> <jrholliday at davismakerspace.org> wrote:
> >> I noticed that during the email discussion
> >> of the key policy, the document was reformatted
> >> at least once, possibly twice.  It would be
> >> good if we could agree on a suitable document
> >> format for future discussions that allowed
> >> strike-outs and tracked revisions.
> >
> > Gotcha.  This is a great point/observation.
> >
> > Just throwing out some ideas for discussion...
> >
> > * For readability, mildly formatted/marked-up text is king.  Something
> > like markdown is probably a good idea.
> >
> > * MS Word / LibreOffice has internal versioning.  That might lead to
> > interoperability issues, however.
> >
> > * We could leverage github for revisioning.  We could also better
> > utilize our internal wiki.
> >
> > -J