[Vit-discuss] content refreshness or lack of [was Brainstorming]

[Ben Giddings]

On Feb 23, 2005, at 08:25, David A. Black wrote:
> I would be cautious about the centralization (physically) of
> resources, as well as about the notion of "official" resources.
> Physical centralization doesn't make sense for many things --
> especially advocacy material, which should be as far-flung as
> possible, but also documentation and tutorials.  (I can't think of any
> reason to go to the trouble of moving the online Pickaxe, Why's
> Poignant Guide, Chris Pine's "Programming through Ruby" site, etc., to
> a single server; it would just be busy-work).
>
> Similarly, things that are not on the ruby-lang.org server must not be
> cast in the role of second-rate or unimportant.  This is where the
> notion of "official" materials can be counter-productive.  The
> official site should point with pride and joy to the great things that
> have been done, and continue to be done, around the net on behalf of
> Ruby.  The community has already outgrown -- or simply not bothered
> with -- a strict official/non-official division, particularly along
> server lines.
>
> In short, I'd describe it not as "the official site for Ruby
> resources", but as "the Ruby homepage, which includes some resources"
> -- leaving it open-ended.

Ok, but would you agree that there are certain resources that really do 
belong on the Ruby homepage?  I really think that certain things *need* 
to be there, like the Ruby API and standard library docs.  They're one 
of the first things a newcomer to the language would want to see, and 
if they're not on the Ruby homepage and up-to-date, a newcomer might 
not believe they're official.

Sure, not everything Ruby-related needs to go on ruby-lang.org, but I 
think there should be more there than there is now.  There should be at 
least enough to convince people that Ruby should be taken seriously.  
Newcomers shouldn't *need* to go elsewhere to find important resources.

Ben