tldr; I need people to review my written tutorials before they get published.
Hey, guys,
As you may know, I've been quite busy at SS Ltd building out a new section of
silverstripe.org that will deliver comprehensive educational resources on learning SilverStripe (
http://silverstripe.org/learn/lessons). So far, we've only got a handful of tutorials, but the response from the community, particularly among noobs, has been really positive, and we're quite keen to keep cranking these out so we can get on to more advanced topics.
I'm reaching out to all of you because I really want to add some peer review to the process of creating and delivering these lessons. As the saying goes, "those who can't do teach." While I know I can very well do most of the stuff I'm teaching, I'm humble enough to see that I don't enjoy the caliber of expertise exhibited by many of you folks. A lot of times my written tutorials may include factual errors (e.g. does /dev/build flush the template cache, too?) or poorly illustrated concepts (e.g. controllers contain business logic). Having an expert review what I write would grossly improve the quality of the lessons.
Here's how I envision it working: Around mid-week, I post a link to a shared Google Doc to a given group of people, and you write up your comments/feedback/revisions by a certain date. (We try to maintain a tight schedule so that lessons are delivered in a predictable pattern). If you're not keen that week, you can certainly opt out, but I'm hoping that by having a decent sized list, we can be sure to get at least one person to review per week.
Typically lessons are < 1,000 words, so the total time commitment would be about 30 minutes per week. And again, you're always free to abstain.
Anyone who is interested, please let me know, and certainly if you have any better ideas on how this might work, I'd love to hear.
Cheers.