Generally, we are not required to follow any rigid definition of casual contributors. We have to find out ourselves what fits us. And with the people who use our tools for casual contributors, the definition may develop. I am not sure if it is necessary or even constructive to permanently “fix the one definition”.
In my opinion, one of the issues we have is to find a new definition to start with in order to derive a target audience (I elaborated that a little in the topic post).
Hanku already added points to the guide to help people to get deeper into git, and to get deeper understanding, which develops the definition: our past definitions were based on people who just wanted to get their contribution done without being bothered by git, because not everyone needs git, and investing time to really understand git only to make casual contributions can be questioned in its sense.
However, given the evolvement of GitLab, I am not sure if the past definitions still fit our needs, because it can be questioned at all if it is still realistic for the “originally derived” target audience to do casual contributions: getting basic understanding of GitLab (and thus git) seems not avoidable on the long term. And at the moment, GitLab seems to develop their functions further faster than we can identify and tackle issues that rise from it when it comes to our use cases (which can be deterring and annoying for contributors).
So maybe the new definition to start with is people who casually contribute without being permanent member and without taking long-term responsibility but who remain with contributing irregular once they find some issue in the Docs they can solve off the cuff. Additionally, and this is the major difference to the past definition, we are talking of people who want to exploit their “casual contribution” to get some basics of git, which means use the casual contribution to learn (which also means they invest a little more time than just “click and done”).
Feel free to question every of my points, nothing of that is fixed yet. But we do not need to invest too much time in arguing about definitions: this will be answered by answering the other questions (my goal was to derive definitions/target audience from answering the original questions).
However, with Sampson’s ask.fedora #Docs tag idea in mind: @sampsonf it should be possible to add yourself the #docs tag to any topic you open on ask.fedora. Once any user has created it, it will be in the list there (let me know if this does not work in the merged discourse).
I think it is worth to think of increasing the use of ask.fedora for casuals, making the guide more a point to start, sufficiently generic/abstract to remain reliable, but still giving casuals a sufficient overview of what this is all about, and for questions/issues, we can make a stronger focus on and link to ask.fedora: this has a low entry barrier because every day many people ask “how to achieve this” questions there. Just a thought Does that make sense?