>>> I was actually thinking about setting up an "Unofficial Qubes
>>> Users/Community" wiki a while back, but I didn't end up doing anything
>>> because I wasn't sure if it was a good idea. (Didn't want to encroach
>>> official wiki or cause headaches for Joanna and Marek. Also wasn't
>>> there was much demand for such a thing.)
I can't stop you from doing anything, but IMO "official unofficial wiki"
make confusion, especially in case of conflicting information.
We all can contribute to the official wiki.
> With all due respect, this is false. Editing the wiki is not open to
Yes. This is some tradeoff between having a lot of contributors to the wiki
(including low quality ones and spammers...) and having few but high-level
contributors. We don't have time to review each wiki change and revert if
necessary so we tend more to the second option.
Yes contributors are top level. But is the documentation high level?
Developers tend to document for developers not for end users. So they tend
to miss steps, hints, links etc that may be obvious for a developer, but
are not obvious for an end user. So stopping many people from using Qubes
Good documentation does not require a high level developer, but certain
requires a high level documenter. Look, it is not easy to write in a way
that everybody involved can really understand. Or is this a software for
And the errors? Well, everybody can make errors. But everybody can also
note and correct errors. The onus of correcting errors is *not* on
developer's shoulders. Also the level of an open documentation reflects the
level of users and I proudly think that Qubes users are second to none.
Apparently this model doesn't works well... Posting a code patch on the
mailing list is simple, even git comes with handy tools for it (git
format-patch, git send-email etc). But posting some wiki update isn't (you
need manually describe which page, which line etc; also applying such
require some work).
Currently we are discussing internally some change to policy to who we give
write access to the wiki. I hope this will improve the situation very soon.
Yes, it is a matter of organization, Arch-linux wiki did not reach the
outstanding level it is by sending contributions to a mailing list, hoping
someone pick them up.
There is plenty of contributions, results, hints, facilitations on this
mailing list, but none picked them up. Why? Obviously because developers
have to devote their time to software development not to pick up
contributions and results from a mailing list, organizing, categorizing
them and *maintaining them*.
So why a model that worked so well for Arch-linux (up to be an example in
linux distributions) may give not so good results with Qubes? I see only
one major difference: Qubes is devoted to security. Someone may create a
wiki page to teach how to attach a bluetooth dongle to vaultVM to easily
transfer data to the cell phone and a reader may think this is part of the
famous Qubes security framework.
Arch-wiki has guidelines for contributing
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchWiki:Contributing . It is
possible to do something similar with some additional guidelines for
security. It would be very helpful to identify a sort of discipline
security code stressing what is strictly prohibited publishing (connecting
dom0 to internet, etc), what is dangerous, but possible in certain limited
cases (using bluetooth in Darien Jungle) in this case it should be marked
in red, and finally what is secure. Well this is just an idea to address
this Qubes specific problem. Others may have better ideas. What matters is
to solve this problem, because it is a problem.