[rt-users] RT3 Documentation: Hackers, FAQ, etc. ???

[Jesse Vincent]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:44:40AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> In early November, Bob Goldstein asked about meta-docs
> (http://lists.fsck.com/pipermail/rt-users/2003-November/018157.html).
> Specifically he asked about the missing RT3 FAQ and Hacking Guide. Jesse
> responded:
> 
> > *nod* Point well taken. The documentation effort is somewhat
> > behind where we'd like it to be, though we should have
> > exciting news on that front soon.
> 
> 
> When is soon?  > Who is we?  > Will you be wanting feedback?  > How to contribute?

While our software is all publically available, the Business side of the
house can't be run completely transparently. I can't yet say anything
detailed about what we're doing about the documentation effort. At this
point, the "i"s have been dotted, but we're still waiting on the "t"s
being crossed. When I can tell y'all what's going on, I will.

> 
> Even if the IS guys like the demo... And I don't mean to be an ass here, but
> I can foresee the objections I can expect to get. They're going to visit the
> bestpractical website and see less documentation than they're used to and no
> convenient access to a knowledgebook. If they're patient enough to navigate
> the website, they'll eventually find more documentation on fsck.com/rtfm.
> But the click paths between sites aren't always short, consistent or
> obvious. Then perhaps they'll visit the fsck.com homepage itself, and the
> impression that will be formed when they realize how intertwined the company
> and Jesse's personal website are, will be of a one-man shop operating on a
> shoe-string.

RT _is_ an opensource project. It was my hobby for many years before I
quit my day job to concentrate on creating free software. We're
certainly not a one-man shop, but we are a small company. And as such,
we don't have a lot of spare time to focus on a slick corporate
branding.  We'd much rather spend the time concentrating on creating
world-class software than on making sure that the website has cornflower
blue icons for every resource.  Things are much better than they were
six months ago. And six months ago, they were much better than they were
a year ago. I'm confident that they'll be much improved in another six
months.


> Of course the product (with support contract) that we're currently using has
> bad documentation, is bug-ridden and has provided almost nothing in the way
> of paid for support. But they sure do have slick website ;)

And you're looking at ditching them. The money they paid to have their
website developed is probably what it would cost me to employ a
competent developer for a year.  As the company grows, you will see more
"polish," but fundamentally, we're a technology company. And, at the end 
of the day, solid technology is what you want and need. 


	Best,
	Jesse Vincent
	President
	Best Practical Solutions, LLC
-- 
http://www.bestpractical.com/rt  -- Trouble Ticketing. Free.