Hi Gary,
That is perfectly fine by me. Actually, I intend to offer the same
technical-editor training on the other side of the aisle--over at OOo docs
also. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that the source of the
(expected...) super abundance of technical errors in the current LO
documentation chapter source files had originated in the OOo source files
used as the basis for the current LO documentation.
I intend to offer the training without any specific targets, be they
volunteers at OOo docs or LO docs or from whatever. That is primarily why I
will conduct it online on the forum site instead of having it buried under
the rug and unused at LO docs or elsewhere.
May I ask if this training is going to be offered free of charge?
One thing I don't really get is why you don't post content back to a
LibreOffice resource, like Alfresco or the Documentation wiki - at
least in parallel to whatever you want to conduct on your own site?
Of course you may ask...
Myself, I have been mostly retired the past year or two but still get invited to work on technical-editing or book-layout projects that I receive from various referrals and such. So, I have not been active lately at either OOo docs or LO docs.
Why would I consider charging for my offering advice on my or any other websites? How would that work? (Rhetorical questions, BTW.)
No animus on my part, but... Just what is with you that I or anybody else should cater to your whims, etc? When you went through your two (or three) power-control temper tantrums in the past at LO docs, I never intervened in any way but merely observed. (IOW, it is not important to me whether or not you don't really get anything about whatever I do.)
If I simply edited a rather poorly "edited" LO source document (e.g. the LO, and very likely OOo, Chapter 10 source document) and submitted it through Alfresco--not a problem with me, though--there would be little, if any, future benefit to be derived from my doing so. A forum can offer an avenue for publicly demonstrating technical-editing techniques on a source document, and that could have some lasting value at any time in the future. BTW, employing a lousy file for editing practice offers many more opportunities for remediation and demonstration purposes.
On a forum with its accompanying exposition, any prospective technical editors could see and learn the nuts-and-bolts involved in the technical-editing process--instead of merely using LO's Alfresco as a database, which does not offer much opportunity for teaching, learning, demonstration and such, which a forum can easily do. And then there could be opportunities for anybody to intervene interactively with their own inputs. And so on.
In addition, I do not want my training exposition to be tied to just one project or whatever. So, why limit it to just Alfresco at LO, which would likely serve more as a burial site than anything else? It is rather obvious to me that LO docs at present is doing next to nothing about editing their own source files. Otherwise, the LO/OOo chapter 10 source document would very likely not contain over 150 errors...
I am on the OOo docs email list also as you, so we both clearly know that
OOo docs is getting a fair number of recent volunteers--such as OOo getting
a new volunteer right before I am posting this message, whereas LO is not
receiving many such new volunteers, for what that is worth. OOo docs appears
to be promoting itself much better effectively relative to LO docs--even
though you have appealed to some new OOo volunteers recently over at OOo
docs to entice them to come over to this side of the aisle also.
Frankly, I'm wondering if they don't have some kind of spam thing
going on over there. I've noticed regular posts from supposedly
prospective docs contributors, but not one of them has ever posted
back a second time, which is kind of strange. In the past, here on the
LibO docs ML, when people volunteer then you usually see follow-up
activity and some kind of work contribution thereafter.
Anyway, I will continue to post the original (improperly edited) LO source
file and the edited LO source file for Chapter 10 on the forum site and then
add the exposition that indicates the specific areas of sloppiness and
technical errors therein and how any technical-editor trainees, who might
ever meander over there (from anywhere), should eradicate and remedy the
errors.
If you're planning to do something that's "in parallel" to the LibO
docs effort, insofar as you don't contribute work via LibreOffice
resources, and yet you produce derived content in respect of what's
offered by the LibO project, then you might at least want to bear in
mind the question of LibO's copyright and logo usage rules.
But I don't yet have a very clear idea about what your plans are, so
these are just thoughts that come to mind.
You need to get serious about copyright... LO merely mostly duplicated, for the most part, and rebranded source material from Oracle's (now Apache's) OOoAuthors documentation project (much of which I have already contributed to myself since 2006, BTW). And you talk about copyright--when LO docs is not doing really that much on its own at present? My current editing of the Chapter 10 source document--and making it available for anybody over at LO to use--is, at a minimum, a contribution to LO docs in itself.
Gary