comments

Comments on the “Goals for content” section of the Project_Status page

It should be reasonably accurate, with systems and standards being defined to establish it as a reliable and reusable reference for the community:

• There must be a consensus definition of a reference-able level of quality, probably with a minimum of two positive SME reviews on top of accurate syntax and a working example, and infrastructure to facilitate the flows, reporting, and completion on all incremental work and relevant feedback, and visually reflect the exact status on all elements.
• There must be a reusable and reference-able listing of the complete topic tree to be included in the reference-able site, with basic status and content reporting via API.
• At least 90% of all identified topics are validated to our standard of reference-able; all remaining topics are present, syntax-complete to the extent possible, with the rest of their status and open items clearly shown on those pages.

Strategic and tactical suggestions:

• These criteria can be applied to one major content area at a time, so that they enter our expanding Beta stage sequentially. We can selectively swarm on areas to get them over the line, and apply the incremental lessons learned to the next round.
• Prioritization of areas to complete should also account for community readiness to both engage in validation (as per our working definition of reference-able), and in reuse (i.e., consume the API or use the site), for the content.
• We don’t expect all APIs and all reuse to be the same. This may be a secondary consideration in sequencing the topic areas (maybe start with what is better defined, or simpler, or preferably both).