Re: Subject for Amsterdam Doc Sprint

Hi,

Good ideas! I think that would work.
I'll go over the list and put it into a couple of chunks, and ask my
experts if they have an area they would like to cover.

Cheers,
Paul

On 29 September 2014 19:35, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Hi Paul.
>
>
>
> I like Amelia’s suggestions, especially this:
>
>
>
> So in the absence of other ideas, that could be a strategy -- start with
> Almost Ready and turn them into Ready to Use.
>
>
>
> You can search the site beforehand and see where there are clusters of
> pages that need that little nudge to get to Ready.
>
>
>
> The other thing I would urge you to do is poll your experts and see if
> there’s a section of the docs that they’d like to work on and that plays to
> their strengths. We’ve been successful in the past in assigning a smaller
> group to work with an expert in some particular area.
>
>
>
> Let me know if you think you need more than this or more detailed
> suggestions. Of course, your original thought around the three main groups
> is also valid. J
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Eliot
>
>
>
> *From:* Amelia Bellamy-Royds [mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2014 7:56 AM
> *To:* Paul Verbeek
> *Cc:* public-webplatform@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Subject for Amsterdam Doc Sprint
>
>
>
> I guess no one here likes to tell others what to do!
>
>
>
> I've been bouncing some ideas back and forth with Dave Gash about the
> readiness of WPD (he took over the remaining readiness marker assessments
> when other volunteers bowed out this summer).  Here was his assessment:
>
>
>
> There are nearly as many Almost Ready pages as Ready pages. Following the
> review checklist, The Almost Ready category is a narrow one, and that's
> good; there are only a few things that can cause a page to be Almost Ready.
> By contrast, the In Progress category is pretty broad; there's a wider
> range of problems that can throw a page into that category. And, although
> the Not Ready category is quite narrow, there are lots of pages in it. (But
> to be fair, some of those are just move candidates, not pages that
> need work.)
>
> So, where to begin?
>
> It seems to me that promoting Almost Ready pages to Ready would be (a) the
> most visible and dramatic improvement to the overall doc set, (b) the
> simpest task technically, and (c) the easiest to spread out over many
> authors and/or new contributors -- say, at Doc Sprints.
>
> I found two things that consistently kept pages at Almost Ready: lack of
> an example or lack of a specification reference/standardization status. In
> most cases, those small problems could be fixed by multiple contributors at
> various levels of expertise with just a few lines of JavaScript or a quick
> search for the appropriate W3C specs.
>
>
>
> So in the absence of other ideas, that could be a strategy -- start with
> Almost Ready and turn them into Ready to Use.  You could still work within
> the general topic areas you suggested, as a way of helping participants
> divide up into different areas of subject expertise.
>
>
>
> If you need help figuring out the search features to set up sortable
> indexes of pages in a given readiness state, let me know.
>
>
>
> AmeliaBR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 September 2014 06:51, Paul Verbeek <verbeek.p@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Number of replies so far: 0
>
>
>
> Do I have the wrong email address?
>
>
>
> On 24 September 2014 10:42, Paul Verbeek <verbeek.p@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>
>
> As I previously mentioned, I wanted to talk about what kind of subjects
> the participants of the Doc Sprint could be working on. Amelia thought it
> was a good idea to put the question in this list.
>
>
>
> My initial ideas are the following:
>
> - HTML attributes [1].
>
> - JavaScript APIs
>
> - CSS properties [2] that are not 'Ready to Use'
>
> - And for everybody who don't want to work on the above they can work
> through the lists op pages that are not 'Ready to Use' [3] to push as much
> progresses toward 'Ready to Use'.
>
>
>
> If you could submit your ideas before next Tuesday's call, we can discuss
> it then further.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/html/attributes
>
> [2] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/properties
>
> [3] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Property:State
>
>
>
>
>