[Foss4g2009] better method for collaborative document editing

[mapbutcher]

this is where i think software like basecamp has a role to play:
http://www.basecamphq.com/ which is free for a single project i.e. one
conference

however we have already got a set of tools i'm not sure its worth changing
horse mid stream?

2008/9/25 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>

> -0 for collaborative editing using a wiki.
>
> Wikis are a poor tool for tracking changes because you can't easily see
> what has changed, what it was before, or who changed it (Yes, you can do a
> history diff, but it is messy). Open Office is better, but doesn't do a good
> job with inserting comments. Much as I hate saying it, Word is the best tool
> I seen yet for this.
>
> My preference is to use tracked changes in word, followed by tracked
> changes in Open Office.
> (Note, the document authors, usually Tour Hosts, should be able to merge
> changes from multiple authors)
>
> Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I don't use MS Word as a rule (except at my old job), preferring Open
>> Office.
>> I also don't have access to it now, and have no intention of buying a
>> license.
>>
>> B
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:45 -0700, Dave Patton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The current process that we are using for
>>> making collaborative changes to documents
>>> isn't working for me. Currently, once a
>>> document(e.g. a flier) is created, it's
>>> mailed to 'the list' as a Word document,
>>> and people are invited to make comments
>>> and changes, using Word's 'track changes'.
>>> As has already been demonstrated, as soon
>>> as someone forgets to use 'track changes',
>>> or two people make changes to their copy
>>> of the original, the system breaks down,
>>> and requires people to re-review, and even
>>> redo changes they already have made.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest that we switch to a method where
>>> there is a "single source document" that is
>>> used for any collaborative editing/review.
>>>
>>> My vote would be to use a wiki page, which will
>>> be suitable for anything where we are 'just
>>> reviewing text'. If there are also going to
>>> be 'layout issues'(e.g. formatting, what images
>>> to use, etc.) with the document, then address
>>> them using commentary on a PDF version that is
>>> mailed to the list, after the text is 'finalized'.
>>>
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foss4g2009 mailing list
>>> Foss4g2009 at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Systems Architect
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2009 mailing list
> Foss4g2009 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2009/attachments/20080926/a9c708e6/attachment.html