On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Dave Coleman <davetcoleman@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > but something that's badly needed from Clearpath's perspective is a
> modern take on what the parts are which make up a typical ROS robot.
>
> Its unfortunate that creating better online ROS wiki documentation isn't
> more prestigious or having any monetary reward as a book does, because in
> this day and age that is what ROS, and most software projects, really need.
> I've put a good amount of effort into editing the wiki but it does get
> tiring. Perhaps having better author attribution on the ROS wiki's
> conceptual pages would be more motivating.
>
>
Would it help to create a documentation SIG?  Would there be enough
interest in one to keep it going?  I'd imagine such a SIG could coordinate
to:

* Explicitly document ROS conventions, providing references to REPs where
appropriate (base_link and map frames, coordinate systems, naming schemes,
etc.)
* Transition useful conventions to REPs where appropriate
* Identify common ROS use cases and create tutorials for them as Mike
suggested
* Update existing tutorials when new ROS releases come out
* Update existing tutorials to be more useful in general
* Poke package maintainers and developers for {more,better,any}
documentation of their packages

A lot of the above exists already scattered around the wiki, but I think a
concerted effort to tie it all together and fill in the blanks would be
beneficial.  If there's interest, I can set up a mailing list, SIG wiki
page, and get things started.

Rich