[open-linguistics] Documentation practice and discussion culture

[Christian Chiarcos]

> there seems to be some confusion with regard to documentation practice.  
> Some members of this list are closer to the inner workings of the  
> LOD-cloud than others and are aware of many implicit assumptions/shared  
> knowledge other people ignore.
> It would probably be good to list the relevant documents and processes  
> again. RTFM is OK, but you have to no where the M is.
> Finally, I would like to commend John for bein BOLD in the wikipedia  
> sense. Not knowing the precise rules should not ban anyone from  
> contributing, and I would like to ask John to continue contributing with  
> whatever knowledge of the rules and procedures he has or lacks.

Unfortunately, discussing in an interdisciplinary group, deviating
implicit assumptions about goals and practices cannot be avoided. Keeping
this in mind, we should just avoid being over-sensitive about other
people's beliefs and knowledge and try to clarify and document our own
criteria and beliefs about practices rather than criticising other list
members directly.

Apparently, we have an issue here with the current practice of small-scale
skype meetings, publication groups and personal meetings. This easily
leads to a divergence of ideas about what this is all about. In fact, we
have deliberately adopted very weak inclusion criteria for the LLOD cloud
diagram draft in the beginning. This may have been implicit when we
drafted the diagram, but this is documented in print and in the wiki. So,
I am very much inclined to agree with John's assessment rather than with
Sebastian's. Not because one position is more "correct" than the other,
but because this is more conformant with the written (rather than with the
spoken) record.
As for RTFM: In case of doubt, the M is the printed or otherwise
centralized documentation (i.e. papers or wiki). And if no manual is to be
found, then just write one (and tell others). That's what the wiki is for.

If nothing else, this example shows that the OWLG needs more structure
and/or documentation.

Best,
Christian