Re: Web Platform Involvement Ideas

+1 on code example docsprint! J

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Mills <>
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:26 AM
To: Nic da Costa <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: Web Platform Involvement Ideas

>On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:59, Nic da Costa <> wrote:
>> Hey All
>> I have a few ideas that i would like to bounce around with how to
>>improve/increase enthusiasm and participation with the Web Platform and
>>the docs.
>Hi Nic! Thanks for sharing your ideas.
>> I know dabblet is currently being integrated into Web Platform and I
>>thought that when this is released, that there could be another virtual
>>doc sprint held to promote the new feature and at the same time, add new
>>or enhance any existing docs. It could be seen as somewhat of a "launch"
>>event. With this in mind, also to look at having a possible Google+
>>hangout with several dev rels to "show off" all of the new features,
>>chat about contributing, how to go about it and to get the doc sprint
>>started. As i have noticed that whenever there is a hangout / video /
>>live stream of an event, there is generally a lot more enthusiasm
>>surrounding the event and website as well as people are more keen to
>I do think it'd be a nice idea to have a "code example" doc sprint, where
>we get a load of examples added to existing pages.
>> Lastly, I briefly chatted about this with some people in the IRC
>>channel, but maybe look at leveraging Google+ more by creating a
>>community with the existing Google+ page? I am still not certain if this
>>is entirely needed as this would somewhat mimic the Q&A feature already
>>available on the website, but would in the same breadth bring in a lot
>>more "foot traffic" as there are already numerous users who frequent
>>Google+ on a regular basis and could thus contribute / ask questions.
>I suppose it'd work well in terms of casual users happening upon it,
>rather than people having to make a conscious effort to find it. But one
>problem would be that this would mean _another_ place to frequent and
>maintain. And we've had enough criticism about that already, with the
>properties we've already got. So it would maybe require some careful

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 14:18:53 UTC