in reply to Perldocs and peer reviews
A full knowledge of a subject often changes my opinion of it. Take the American Electoral Colledge. Once I read about the history and reasoning behind the system, I reversed my opinions on it's validity. I think that far too many people strongly believe their uneducated opinions.
That said, I support the *idea* of documentation review. I suggest that documentation should make the module's purpose clear. The idea that using the module will clarify the documentation seems backwards. On the other hand, the mechanical details may be best learned hands on, with the docs as a guide.
Perhaps a simple questionaire would be appropriate / helpful. Asking questions like:
- What is the primary purpose of this module?:
- Common answer A
- Common answer B
- Common answer C
- Recent answer A
- Recent answer B
- Recent answer C
- Enter your own
- "What are the core features of this module?"
- "Is the language of this module easy to follow?"
- Etc.
This could be aggregated into a format that is easy for authors to review.
In any case, just brainstorming.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: Perldocs and peer reviews
by g0n (Priest) on Feb 03, 2005 at 12:55 UTC |