I looked into docs website and thought that this might be something that I would be able to contribute in.
Site has link which instructs how to write to github, but gives no direction on how to collaborate with other writers. Like @Sentinelrv mentioned above, I think there should be clear structure for the contents and plan to make it happen. How do you manage this project and guide contributors to right tasks (texts)? For example, what part of text could I start working on?
I wanted to have started writing the intro and basics section by now, however at the same time this wiki software became available, I got involved in some other projects, 1. the logo for Indicium, 2. a redesigned logo for the upcoming PeerKeeper wallet, and 3. a much larger design project Iām working on for the Peercoin Team. 1 and 2 are done, but Iām still working on 3. I hope to be done within the next week or two, but itās not guaranteed.
Once Iām finished, I would like to be able to start working on the wiki project. Before I start though, I would like to talk with the team about the exact messaging we want to deliver in the basics section. I think there arenāt any contributors right now because they need some direction first and nobody wants to get the introduction wrong, since there is a lot of different things that could be talked about and we want to make sure to get specific info across to the reader. Once the basics are written though and there is some actual content we can work with, I think others will start to chip in with feedback and suggestions to improve or additional sections to include and such.
I think the best place to assign people to specific tasks (and follow progress) will be exactly where the project source code resides. We can use GitHub Issues and create discussions on a section level. We can then assign labels to help identify which issues are related to what.
Each section will have its own Issue, this way we can discuss about that specific piece of the docs alone. Section issues should not be closed until that section is 100% written and revised.
Bugs and enchancements would get their own Issue. Found a bug? New Issue. Think some feature should be added? Another Issue.
As of now, those are the labels that will be used in the to identify the issues categories:
Writing: Label used on issues focused only on writing pieces of the documentation.
Section: Defined when the Issue is related to a whole section of the documentation.
Discussion: Wanna discuss something that isnāt fully defined yet? Use this label.
Enhancement: Ask for some feature in the project (which isnāt related to the text itself, but the website).
Bug: Report a bug in the project (which isnāt related to the text itself, but the website).
Labels can also be combined. If I want to discuss about some specific section, I can add discussion and section labels to that Issue. This way I believe it will be easier to focus on specific points of the documentation.
GitHub Issues are also good because you can assign people to them. So I can explicitly say that Joe and Martha are working on that section and everyone will be able to see that and know who actually is working on what.
I believe it may be a little confusing in the beginning (especially to those who never used things such as GitHub or Git), but you can always check the already open Issues to learn by example.
Docs Issues can be found here: https://github.com/peercoin/docs/issues
This thread will keep being used because we a place to discuss the documentation as a whole, roadmap, status review and other generic topics that fit better in the forum.
@Sentinelrv what do you think?
###We should use Github Issues to manage who is doing what in the docs.
Count me among that group as Iāve never really used GitHub before, but this does seem like a good way to organize it.
I just wanted to mention that Peerchemist started writing a chapter on how Peercoin relates to other networks. Feedback would be helpful to improve. You can see it hereā¦
The new wiki looks great and will be awesome when done 
However, I have some doubts similar to what @skull and @river seem to be getting at. That is, it looks like something that will take quite a long time and be putting the cart before the horse.
Shouldnāt the landing page be updated first? Just some small changes like replacing the current banner with our new slogan āThe Pioneer of PoSā and removing the dated video etc. could add millions to our market cap. For example, when RISE recently updated their landing page their market cap more than quadrupled.
I other words, I think now is the time to attract investors first to increase our market cap and naturally attract interest from developers.
I agree
Writing this documentation is not an organized effort, itās done in spare time by community members and is moderated by the core team. Why not allow people to do what they feel like doing? For example I canāt help with the website because I have no skills to do that, but I can write some documentation.
I think you may be right here. I had not initially planned on taking so long with the design project Iām currently working on and I have a feeling that the documentation is going to take a long time to complete. As Peerchemist said though, certain people are better at documentation and can continue to focus on that. I have started talking to the team though already about getting the website redone first. Itās not good that we have so many new people visiting us and we have nothing prepared for them to see.
Before doing a full revamp, I think spending a few hours making some simple changes could make a huge difference.
Number of nodes
Number of forks
Total market cap created
Any volunteers to handle task of rewriting the famous āpillow peercoin mythsā onto new documents project?
With updates to the content naturally as some of the stuff has been changed.
Weāve updated Docs design in order to give it a cleaner and lighter look. More adjustments may come in the future as we mature the documentation content.
P.s.: this image uses sample texts for design purposes.
Check live at: https://peercoin.github.io/docs/
Hey All,
I can help out if you need some help. I quite like writing docs!
Iāve done quite a lot of tech documentation over the years, if thereās any of that needed?
Well yes, weāre in dire need of doing some tech docs. This is the project we started a while back but it had limited attention so far.
Mostly people are simply afraid to write something as they feel they will go wrong. But there is mechanism of peer-review as it goes trough github PRās.
Easy start would be copying the articles from the old wiki and giving them a fresh live at the new docs site, for example: http://wiki.peercointalk.org/index.php?title=Constants_in_peercoin_code
@jamesbert Thatās awesome!
Iāve posted it up there somewhere, but just in case you didnāt catch up, here are the links of the docs:
The README.md has all the needed instructions, but its not mandatory to run the whole project locally. You can simply write the markdown files and submit pull requests.
If you have any questions or need any info on how to deal with the docs, please let me know.
