clear entry point for vols and intermediate-plus students

[intuedge]

in order to participate effectively in the edit cycle for the installfest or curriculum docs, you need (at a minimum):

• a github account, logged in, and the git client on your machine
• basic editor skills
• basic markdown, step, and (possibly) slide syntax
• (missing) guidelines for how to name, comment, and submit pull reqs

the "preview" links only show the git-diff on the source code changes; if you want to actually see what your changes would look like, you have to bundle install the forked repo, which is more advanced than the installfest, and doesn't work on windows at all

given that we are now developing multiple variants and deep-dives, I propose that we now provide a clear entry point and how-to for providing feedback and offering edits, that at a minimum covers the bullets in the first para, and includes the option of doing the stuff implied by the second para

note that Godfrey has provided nearly all of the component instructions and guidelines, but what is missing is the cover page that organizes and points to them, and then making sure that we link to that in all the right places

[cczona]

That sounds great. Thank you Godfrey! Where are those currently?

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Doug May notifications@github.com wrote:

note that Godfrey has provided nearly all of the component instructions
and guidelines, but what is missing is the cover page that organizes and
points to them, and then making sure that we link to that in all the right
places

[cczona]

A clarification: we're not "now developing multiple variants"

• Ruby for Beginners is the existing curriculum, under elaboration/expansion.
• Frontend is independent of the Ruby/Rails curriculum
• Deep Dive into Databases is independent of all

Complementary curricula, yes.

Variants, no. (Maintaining that would be miserable)

[alexch]

A clarification to the clarification:

• Foundational Skills
• Ruby For Beginners
• Ruby For Programmers
• Introduction To Rails (aka Suggestotron)

is the current curriculum, but there are forking paths through it at most workshops, and I believe last weekend it was just one of those (Ruby For Beginners). See http://workshop.railsbridge.org/workshop/

[lilliealbert]

Can we circle back on this and figure out what specific action needs to be taken to consider this issue resolved?

[intuedge]

tl;dr: I am happy to close it, give it a whole fresh look, or release it to whatever's next.

Hi Lillie, (Carina, Alex, Godfrey,) et al.

Thanks for bringing this back for an update. As I re-read it, I am circling back via moldy breadcrumbs.

If you are asking whether as the requester I am satisfied that my concerns have been addressed -- totally YES. If you are asking whether as a nit-picking business analyst I would consider the general issue to have been sustainably solved -- not sure, would have to look.

Options: (1) I could just call this one handled, and cite (below) the extensive work done by multiple people on multiple fronts to address the issues I pointed to. (2) I could re-engage with the site, the installfest, and the curriculum/-la to see how we are now doing at being both vol- and newb-"friendly" (bad language), and update the issue (in case you were really eliciting specific actions). (3) We could decide that we are overdue for a retrospective, celebrating our accomplishments (and lessons learned and challenges survived), getting clear about where we are now, and charting the next round forward (so this stale issue is just fodder for the rebirth process, and will be properly recycled).

Maybe you were already thinking about option 3, and thought it would be classy to remove this turd from the pool before the event (so we're emphatically back to option 1). In all cases I am at your service, so I ask you, Lillie -- How would you like me to handle this (in service to the community and the mission)? The obvious (to me) options include (a) to close it (take the big win and be done with it), (b) to audit the originally identified concerns (enforce simple rigor along the way), or (c) to audit the original intention (keep the mission and the opportunity in the foreground).

Local retrospection:

In the 8 months +/- since I filed this issue, much has happened:

• there has been a lot of investment in broadening the curriculum, in terms of coverage of both technical topics and of our targeted (under-represented) audience
• the core railsbridge site has (for quite a while) successfully built (bundled) in Windows, thanks to local talent, genius, and persistence
• there has been a lot of investment in clarifying and streamlining the various paths to upgrading and contributing to both the curriculum content and the "collective movement", as well as to the general "what's next?" guidance for our students (and volunteers)
• Bridge Troll is back up and moving forward, with some initial mentoring enhancements

Do I think that smooth newb-feedback and volunteer-contribution on-ramps are vitally important -- absolutely. Do I think that if you asked me to scrutinize the current set-up, I could find something that might be improved -- almost certainly yes. Do I think that one of the original specifics I noted might still persist -- possibly yes (I wouldn't be surprised).

But do I think any deeper revisiting of this issue (as filed) is in the best interests of the work and community -- I can't tell from my chair, and prefer to delegate that call to you (and/or whomsoever).

Yours,
Doug May

[lilliealbert]

Cool! That's a good summary of why this issue can be closed. It's certainly something that needs regular work / attention, but not in the form for this particular GitHub issue, I think.