Place for websites / tools "User Docs" on docs.fp.o

Just searching for some ideas on naming a new category on the main docs.fp.o. The ideas of this category would be to house user / usage docs for the Fedora Project tools and applications. For example, sites and services like:

  • Fedora Accounts
  • Discussion
  • Chat (i.e. matrix)
  • Bodhi
  • Koji
    • many more

The naming of this category is a bit tricky – its not just Fedora Infra stuff – since chat and discussion are there.

anyhoo, running a blank on naming this so ideas?

1 Like

I will note too, that only really one of these docs exist at the moment – Fedora accounts – Fedora Accounts / CentOS Accounts :: Fedora Docs

But there is an item on this thread for Chat user docs too – which we can put in this category.

1 Like

It sounds like your list is going to largely overlap with what is listed on Maybe the category name should stick with “apps” just for consistency?


Yeah, consistency is good, but “app” is a pretty broad and overloaded term – i just wonder if there is a better way to describe these Fedora Project tools / applications / infrastructure.


“Community tools”? That’ll be broad enough to include anything used by the community?


I like that. I had another idea in mind but I immediately forgot it after seeing this suggestion. :slight_smile:


This is a great idea Ryan :slight_smile:

What about “Contributor Tools?”


I prefer “Community” over “Contributor” because it covers a larger audience. “Contributor tools” has the implication that this is only for contributors—people already contributing—whereas “Community tools” has a broader implication of just being tools used by the community.

So, as an example, I think folks hanging about who have not yet contributed (like newcomers on our welcome to Fedora pipeline) would find “Community tools” more welcoming because these folks are already part of the community (and we tell them and reinforce this—that “users” are also part of the community) even if they haven’t made a contribution yet.

I don’t know if I’ve worded this particularly well, but I hope you get the idea. :slight_smile:


I could live with “Contributor” but I prefer “Community” for the reasons that Ankur gives. The boundaries are a little fuzzy and for the docs label, the distinction is less important.


As both a newcomer and a contributor-wannabe, as long as there’s a clear rationale or categorisation for those processes and tools, so we know where to look for each kind of activity, I think Community is the most welcoming.


To be honest here, both ‘Community Tools’ and ‘Contributor Tools’ exclude some of the apps and tools that we want to document here. For example, IMHO it is a little confusing to call Koji and Bodhi “Community Tools”, yet Ask and Chat are not the sole domain of “Contributor Tools”

Is it too much of a cludge to just go with both?

i.e. “Community & Contributor Tools”


Collaboration & Development Tools?

I like “Collaboration & Development Tools” for its specificity. And I don’t mind “Community & Contributor Tools”… but both of those are so long. With that in mind, I don’t think having development tools under “Community Tools” is terribly confusing, and might be worth just using that for the sake of keeping it short.

1 Like

Ok, lets keep it community tools.

I also have done a quick structure in gitlab to show where they might sit, strucure-wise:


1 Like