Re: BFG -- purpose, pros, and cons

In general, I feel there's been a lot of fluster about the idea of "BFG" as if it's some new radical idea, but ultimately the main documentation has the same goal of making things easy to understand for all levels of users. I don't see a standard/formal style of English being a barrier to this. We're just using normal words, nothing too cryptic.

I suppose that from the perspective of AB and K@, the biggest difference of the BFG articles is that they attempt to present the information in a very direct manner, one which is very easy to follow step by step. They don't present options, they simply say "Do this!", thus making life easier for those that don't want to have to think and consider things. I like the motivation behind this, but again, I'm wondering just how different this goal is from that of the main documentation. I'm very sure that everyone on the Doc Team and all the people that have worked/work on the main documentation also have pretty much the same desire to make things easy for people to understand.

But perhaps it's a case of AB and K@ feeling that it is utterly impossible to work within the framework of the existing wiki pages? If so, then this is unfortunate, but we must respect their opinion. At first, I was kind of hoping that these alternative "BFG" pages could be incorporated into the main documentation in some way or other. Maybe it is still possible, it's just that when I see pages from the main documentation being hijacked and "BFGed" in style (leaving no original form of the page), I do start to wonder. I don't want to feel like we're in some kind of tug of war between styles!