heh heh, as iptel.org is an open-source project, we need a sponsor to pay for a technical writer if we want one. Iptego did that for SEMS documentation, but we don't have a documentation sponsor for SER. I'm afraid paid beer does not bring us far... So, we will have to cope with the volunteers we have. An advanced user, like you, is as good a writer as anyone, so if you want to put your keyboard fingers where your mouth is ;-), you are very welcome to sign up as a volunteer on either of our three current documentation efforts: 1. Migration guide (editor: Simon Miles) 2. Reference guide (editor: yours truly) 3. SER - Getting Started (editor: ?) I'm in the process of coordinating the table of contents with Simon, but here's an attempted outline: http://www.iptel.org/suggestion_for_outline_of_new_ser_reference_manual Feel free to sign up for any chapter or maybe editor of the Getting Started guide?! g-) SIP wrote: > Oh don't worry. I won't take it the wrong way. I'll be the first to > tell you that the documentation for SER is pretty close to > unusable. But unfortunately, that's the way most open source > projects are. You have all these coding geniuses building them, and > all these systems geniuses testing them... and not a single one of > them remembers how to convey information to the rest of us. ;) > > What the project lacks is a full-time technical writer -- someone > whose job it is is to corner the developers and ask them what all of > this stuff means (in intricate detail) and not let them go until > they've fully explained all of it. Then he/she can take that > information and translate it into something human beings can > understand. > > This is one reason why good technical writers are expensive, and the > primary reason that most companies and projects 'make do' with > whatever they can find. > > If you know any good technical writers who might be willing to fly > off to Europe and ply some of the SER team with beer enough to get > them talking, we could most certainly use it. I'll pay for the beer. ;) > > N. > > > lists(a)infoway.net wrote: >> Excellent news. Thanks for the feedback. Overall, and please don't >> take this negatively, I think documentation for SER is difficult >> for beginners, so if we have to go through the learning curve >> anyway, we might as well do it in the newer version. >> >> Thanks again >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2007 5:04 pm, SIP <sip(a)arcdiv.com> said: >> >> >>> For all intents and purposes, SER 2.0 (the new one) is ready for use. >>> The only thing it's really waiting on to be 'stable' is some better >>> documentation. However, it's best, if you're just getting >>> started, to >>> deploy with the new version and maybe muddle your way through a bit >>> until documentation is complete. >>> >>> N. >>> >>> >>> lists(a)infoway.net wrote: >>> >>>> We are planning on deploying a couple of SER servers and >>>> integrate them with >>>> either SEMS or Asterisk for voicemail. However, we are a bit >>>> confused as to which >>>> version of SER to go with? From what we can tell, the latest >>>> stable version is >>>> 0.9.6. However, we know of the new 0.10.X version. Reading up on >>>> the site, there >>>> is some documentation that explains a little bit of the >>>> differences and/or >>>> migration recommendations/steps. >>>> >>>> So, in an effort to keep life as simple as possible, which >>>> version should we work >>>> with? We are afraid that if we go through a learning cycle with >>>> 0.9.6 we're going >>>> to "suffer" when migrating to the new version, either because of >>>> the learning >>>> curve or because of a potential painful migration process. >>>> >>>> Any recommendations? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Serusers mailing list >>>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>>> >>>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >