After a discussion in the chatterbox this morning (2009-08-07, around 4AM UTC), a godly decision was made to put the pmdev documentation in separate nodetypes from the sitedoc documentation. tye gave two reasons for the decision. Using sitedoc nodetypes:

• messes up assumptions made by 'super search'
• messes up assumptions made by "search faq" functionality

In the course of the discussion, we also concluded that we need to look more closely at any additional changes that may need to be made beyond adding nodetypes. ysth mentioned in particular, the edit history and htmlpages. While it may be possible to minimize or avoid any additional changes by having the new nodetypes inherit from the sitedoc node types, this needs to be investigated. tye delegated the work of investigation to the non-godly pmdevs.

The cb conversation follows:

• bobf: Have we reached consensus on Pmdev documentation?
• tye: why does it have to be consentual?
• ELISHEVA: I think bobf means do we create new nodetypes or use existing sitedoc nodetypes.
• bobf: It doesn't. I'm just wondering what the next steps are.
• ELISHEVA: new nodetyes requires consent and action of gods :-)
• ysth: new nodetypes seem reasonable to me (but I should read that thread)
• ELISHEVA: existing sitedoc nodetypes we can just do (bobf and I are both already in SiteDocClan)
• ysth: tye can we reuse some of the ones you deleted? (just kidding)
• tye: you expect that is possible?
• ELISHEVA: I would prefer new nodetypes - less error prone than jdporter's suggestion that we keep track of pmdev docs manually by adding to a list.
• ELISHEVA: (its easy to forget to add it if one is working quickly)
• tye: sitedoc nodetypes would not be the best choice. it messes up assumptions made by 'super search' and, more importantly, the "search faq" functionality
• bobf prefers new nodetypes, too
• Anomynous Monk objects, but only to prove that you can proceed without consensus
• tye: if there is code required, then pmdev, heal thyself (making a coupla nodetypes is easy)
• Anomynous Monk: but then sock puppets never count
• Anomynous Monk: new htmlpages needed. new case in the edit history stuff.
• ELISHEVA: yes but only gods have create permission for nodetypes.
• ysth belatedly depuppets
• tye: because they can't see their own fingers
• ELISHEVA: if the new nodetypes inherit from sitedoc node types don't they also inherit the htmlpages?
• ysth: ELISHEVA yes, but I thought there was something there that needed changing.
• tye: I don't know what needs changing. That isn't a requirement for only gods to figure that out, so I'm not going to. :)
• tye: These nodetypes have been duplicated before already. The pattern shouldn't be that hard to identify.
• ELISHEVA: I think for now the main issue is categorization. More concern is edit history (i.e. if nodetype name is hardcoded rather than just taken from the current record) - but that can be investigated.
• ELISHEVA: and yes research is something a pmdev can do w/o being a god. :-)
• ELISHEVA: ysth mentioned them being duplicated for pedagogues a few days ago - it that what you mean?
• tye: as for policy, new nodetypes seems the way to go. I just remember hearing that they'd been duplicated.

Best, beth