An alternative would be tagging that page “Users” or “Developers” to Context in addition to the taxonomy available on the page new/edit panel. Just like it’s set up in bbPress codex http://codex.bbpress.org/ to start off.
Setting up or formalizing contributor guidelines should be considered as well. For example, Dennis wrote up a page “Standards for Function Pages” some time back
which could be used or improved upon http://codex.buddypress.org/codex-standards/
We could also set up something like that for the pages marked for Users. An outline of what is required in a certain codex page, images used for codex, when and where to use h2 tags, as well as where to post when they want devs to review what they posted in Codex, etc.
Great point @modemlooper, as I stated before. There is no need for the public to be wikied into the codex. It should be written, reviewed and released just like the software is. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that.
The actual developer and user separation is almost overkill because a majority of the users ARE devs. I was thinking more along the lines of having developer notes that “slide open”. So you woud have your “user” documentation and on the same page if you clicked a tab or text that said something like “For Developers” you get code examples and deeper insight. Thoughts?
@mercime I looked at the page you are referring to and I agree that structuring the codex in that way is best. It lends itself to clarity and consistency.
The actual developer and user separation is almost overkill because a majority of the users ARE devs.
This statement is just not true. The majority of forum support requests are simple things that users want to change on their site. Users ask the same things over and over again in the forums. Having better user docs will help eliminate the redundancy. WordPress makes it easy to “develop” a site. You can get themes and plugins to create almost anything you want without touching code. BuddyPress draws these same types of people. You get a social network without touching any code.
I think that a user section would be more important right now than code snips for developers. Developers dive into code. BuddyPress codebase is well documented inside the plugin.
I’m confused at how complicating the Codex editing process (“written, reviewed and released just like the software is”) removes cooks from your metaphorical kitchen.
Isn’t keeping the barrier to entry as low as possible the best way to get bulk contributions? (Hint: if you say no, you’re wrong.)
There’s no working WITH you, John, because you only want things your way and everyone else is wrong. You just said so.
If I disagree I’m wrong? You’d be better at running a dictatorship than an open source software platform with that attitude.
Why the sudden attacks on my ability and ideas? Isn’t open source supposed to be open minded also?
I want to automate.
I want to help.
I agree with @modemlooper about the user:developer point of view after he explained it.
I am willing to take input and criticism and work WITH people.
You, are not able to respect anyone’s opinion outside of core, John. You have made this explicitly clear durring this debate and it’s ridiculous.
I’m prepared to give my undivided help to you 5 months out of the year and you turn your nose up like a stubborn child.
There’s no complication in my idea, John.
By creating a core team that is dedicated to codex and limiting editor access to that team you:
1) Eliminate misinformation.
2) Reduce the cooks in the kitchen.
3) Create organized collaboration.
4) Free up the core team’s time.
5) Increase codex coverage depth.
@hnla Said it already, there’s more to the codex than names and definitions. Automation will only get this so far, then a person has to step in and go into explicit detail to attain the quality found in the WP codex.
Unless there is some amazing software out there that can write explanatory sentences based on a code snippets. Am I missing something? If so please show me what I’m missing. I love learning new things. But, don’t shoot down good ideas and offers for help based on some hangup you have with outsiders.
I’m just going to say Wikipedia. That is a bohemeth because its open to anyone to contribute. That said it has a standard in structure.
I really only think we need to create a solid structure and outline the main areas of content to get the ball rolling. Let’s stop with the aurgument and get on with adding content.
Please post any ideas in regards to structure below. Then we can move forward.
Already setting up a codex on my server and if you like the resulting product when I’m done you can have it. If not, then I’ll advertise it to the community, those who will truly appreciate it without prejudice.
I’ll be listening to dubstep and kicking butt. If anyone needs me just wait a couple weeks and I’ll be back to gloat. I’ll be the rockstar and @johnjamesjacoby can be my diva sidekick. 
@ethanvan you’ve gone overboard. Your offer to donate 5 months of your time to help out with the Codex does not entitle to you to insult John or anybody else. Nobody needs that kind of “help.” So if you really have led other teams, then you should know how to behave and work with others, especially with John who is the BuddyPress Project Lead.
@mercime, I’ve insulted nobody. He’s insulted me. This codex is obviously a subject that is too sensitive to be addressed by outsiders. I know a clique when I see one. My effort would be best spent, not here.
I’m still waiting on answers as to how the Key Master expects me to reorganize something that I don’t have access to reorganize. But, I already know the answer is “get lost new guy”.
So, enjoy your clique. You’ve successfully cast out another person with good intentions. I hope you’re satisfaction levels are at peak maximum apex. :tips hat:
