SOLVED TrueNAS 12 docs in awful condition compared to 11.3 - can't IX do something?

[dld121]

Yes, 12.0 Documentation is incomplete. It will be better by RELEASE and keep improving. Most topics are still covered by 11.3 User Guides.

The good news is that the new documentation site allows user contributions and corrections. So, it's one step backward and some giant steps forward. Volunteers who can transcribe their wisdom and experience are sought. Perhaps we should start a Documentation sub-forum?

11.3 user guides...does the GUI menu look the same as 12.x? If not, it's no good...I am the new user about the throw up my hands and move to something else.

 

[dld121]

Hi,




I want to give more feedback about this topic because I gave TrueNAS a 2nd (and 3rd) chance this weekend (because I really like the TRUENAS-MINI-3.0-X+) and experimented a lot and I managed somehow to add users that can access SMB shares. I still do not know if its the best way how I did it. etc.

So I want to share one of my main obstacles adding ACLs because, in my opinion, everyone already knowing TrueNAS has probably already internalized this strange UI-behaviour.

Preface:
Users have expectations about a UI based on their past experiences. So a lot of users that have already used a computer for entering data (addresses, customers, users, products, etc.) expect more or less some CRUD (create, read, update, delete) functionality for data records.

So, when I clicked "Edit Filesystem ACL" after creating a new share (which seems to be the same as "Edit Permission" for a pool), I expected to get a form/page where I can create/add an ACL itself and after I created a new ACL I expected to be able to create (CRUD) the entries/members of that ACL (the ACE records).

With this expectation, I got the following page. I have drawn in green and red how I saw that page/form:


View attachment 42444

The word "User" on the left side connects to the "owner@" on the right side, the word "Group" on the left side connects to the word "group@" on the right side. So all these input fields are optically part of one form (I marked the form with a red border) and one ACL-entry/record.

And because the buttons "SELECT AN ACL PRESET" and "ADD ACL ITEM" look the same and are below the data fields (in their column) they are both doing something for the ACL-data-record. Then "ADD ACL ITEM" clearly (it is at the bottom, like form-buttons usually are) will mean that this button ADD/Create the ACL-record with the input fields above.

It surely does not help for understanding this form, that the form-scrollbar is detached from the form and sits at the right border of the browser-window and that the real "SAVE" button is below the screen horizon and is not visible on screen without scrolling. And I do not have a small screen resolution.

Later I understood, that this one form includes the fields for the ACL itself but also all data-records of its members/entries (ACEs) and that all ACEs are shown in the right column with all their data-fields.

But then my expectation was, that the buttons "ADD ACL ITEM" and "DELETE" are related to the fields/data-record above them (like it is in a typical html form).

It did took some time to realize that the "ADD ACL ITEM" button is completely at the wrong position because it is not related to the data above (like the DELETE-button that is next to it) but adds a new, empty ACE-record that is not saved until I scrolled down and clicked the "SAVE"-button.

And I still do not understand why there is a "CANCEL" button besides the "SAVE" button if the form-data is only saved after pressing the "SAVE" button.

I think this is an example of bad UI design and the UI should be changed. But as long as the UI is not changed (there are probably good reasons for not changing the UI) it is an issue that should be included in the documentation, so new users do not fall easily into this trap (like I did).


P.S. If there is a more appropriate area in the forum for this kind of discussion, please give me a hint.

P.P.S. There are a lot of places where the "action-icons" (i.e. the three dots that open extra masks, functions etc.) are hidden because they are not seen without scrolling because they are in the right column of lists. Thats also an UI-issue that should be explained in the documentation.

I second all your comments. My request would be build a 2nd GUI for TrueNasCore that is FreeNAS 11.3 like so we can use the 1000+ Youtube videos on how to configure your own (free)NAS. I cannot wait on TrueNas to rewrite all the documentation.

 

[morganL]

I second all your comments. My request would be build a 2nd GUI for TrueNasCore that is FreeNAS 11.3 like so we can use the 1000+ Youtube videos on how to configure your own (free)NAS. I cannot wait on TrueNas to rewrite all the documentation.

I'd stick with 11.3-U5 if completeness and quality of documentation is the key criteria.

12.0 is a new feature release... like 11.3 it will mature, but it should be used because of its new features. The UI is 80% the same, but it has differences.

 

[danb35]

I'd stick with 11.3-U5 if completeness and quality of documentation is the key criteria.

I'm not sure if this is damage control, or if you (plural) are truly blind to how badly you're shooting yourselves in the foot here. Either way, it's pretty sad. A lot of us still remember The Release That Must Not Be Named.

 

[ornias]

It would take about 2 days of work to make the old documentation up-to-date for 12.0.
If one took the time to slowly, over the course of a year or so, after release work on different documentation, gathering of feedback and implementing it... Everything would've been fine.

Instead this is Documentation-Corral-Edition, where a release was rushed because the management thought it was all fine and dandy and management now continuing to put their fingers in their ears when users point out it's unacceptable.

There is hearing users and listening to users, you guys certainly hear us... But I miss the listening.
If you (plural) think this documentation is acceptable for an enterprise grade product, maybe Olympus LLC (aka the board members) need to step in.

*edit*
To be clear: The last part was not a threat or anything.
Nor is it an issue I have myself... Because I don't actively use the docs...
It's just based on how other might skip the amazing products, because they get the wrong (unfinished, broken) impression.

But this documentation style simply is VERY BAD marketing for the product itself.
Being ignorant about it, isn't just hurting us (the users), but it also simply hurts (or might hurt) the company as a whole.

 

[Stilez]

I'd stick with 11.3-U5 if completeness and quality of documentation is the key criteria.

12.0 is a new feature release... like 11.3 it will mature, but it should be used because of its new features. The UI is 80% the same, but it has differences.

Morgan, in this whole thread, that is possibly the most alarming and unsettling comment of all that I've read.

Translation - and please do correct me if I'm wrong:

"If you want proper documentation as well as a server, then screw you, and you can go stick with 11.x as it goes out of maintenance"​

​

I'm sure that's not what you mean, and you are a caring thoughtful person, but that's in fact what you've said, stripped of all pretence.

If 12 is a new feature release, where are the docs to tell us how the new features are controlled and what the controls for them actually do? Or how to do things for controls that have been removed?

Oh, I know the answer...​

The information to use these "new features" properly isn't in 11.x docs either, as you well know. That's what "new feature release" means.​

But hey, IX's reply is, "if completeness and quality of docs" matters, then see (1) above: you can go stick with 11.x.​

Is that *really* what you're saying? if not, please rephrase it very very quickly.......

And no I'm not usually this snarky but this one is well and truly valid.
And yes I'm angry and sad. It would take so little to make this problem go away, truly. Like @ornias says, a couple of days. Can't you do just that? Please?

 

[ornias]

Truly. Like @ornias says, a couple of days. Can't you do just that? Please?

Precisely, it's not like we want to be snarkt (although I AM ususally this snarky)...

Just update the old-style docs with new screenshots and the new features, do the same for 12.1 and you have about a years worth of time to figure out how to do newstyle docs in a ways that represents enterprise grade software.

 

[Constantin]

I'd stick with 11.3-U5 if completeness and quality of documentation is the key criteria.

12.0 is a new feature release... like 11.3 it will mature, but it should be used because of its new features. The UI is 80% the same, but it has differences.

Allow me to be pedantic but the above argument is a bit like BMW releasing a new MY2021 3-series model with the manual from the MY2019 and saying, "well, 90% of the knobs, buttons, etc. are in the same place, so don't worry and figure out the remaining details yourself". For a BMW, there is likely enough in the same place for a previous owner to be OK with that. But, if you are a making a platform switch from another car to BMW, that attitude is potentially a problem.

IT professionals that are new to TrueNAS and FreeNAS will look at incomplete documentation as the indication of a half-baked project. Undocumented or half-documented features is something that frustrates the living daylight out of anyone trying to set up a server for the first time, troubleshoot a problem, or avoid issues in the first place. Relying on the user community forum to cover for documentation issues is a business risk I would not take.

Like others have pointed out, the documentation for FreeNAS is one of it's outstanding features. It's fantastic how content is tailored precisely by the FreeNAS edition one is using. Unsurprisingly, your current user base hence has high expectations re: quality, completeness, etc. for TrueNAS documentation as well. When the project continues to fail deliver those goods, it suggests disorganization or a lack of focus by management.

The older FreeNAS documentation likely benefitted a lot from the slow evolution of the old UI (at least until Corral / FreeNAS 11). While the 11+ UI has potential, there have been an a lot of bugs to iron out and once you combine those with moving controls about without up-to-date documentation, your user base is going to get frustrated.

Basically, what I am saying is, put the documentation team to work in a way that requires a new or changed feature to be documented or it is not released. Now, that takes resources and I hope others join me in contributing to FreeNAS to make that happen. Fellow forum users, if you contribute en-masse, that is what will give us standing with the company. Complaining on the forum isn't likely to reach the C-suite.

 

[Stilez]

Complaining on the forum isn't likely to reach the C-suite.

@morganL , @Kris Moore - following @Constantin 's comment, how aware exactly are the IX founders in depth of the level and degree of feelings expressing in this thread, from established users and newcomers alike?

It feels serious enough and unresponded enough, that despite Morgan and Kris's seniority and dedication, may we have some direct top level review of this thread, from Mike & Matt themselves, and that they read it themselves?

This is not a long thread, but it is an issue that (1) doesn't feel going away or minor, and (2) has been spoken for by all kinds of users, coming from all kinds of perspectives, but (3) could probably be fixed with relatively minor resources. However (4) IX seems to be standing on its decision and that apparent unwillingness to consider there's a real problem not just talk, is making this worse by far.

It's a rare ask, but could Mike/Matt themselves read it, and specifically discuss?

 

[ornias]

Basically, what I am saying is, put the documentation team to work in a way that requires a new or changed feature to be documented or it is not released. Now, that takes resources and I hope others join me in contributing to FreeNAS to make that happen. Fellow forum users, if you contribute en-masse, that is what will give us standing with the company. Complaining on the forum isn't likely to reach the C-suite.

To be Frank, I personally view the documentation as something that is primarily aimed at making the product Enterprise Grade (just like support packages are). I find a lot of things wrong with the argument "Free Users need to donate, to support enterprise grade documentation for the enterprise customers".

As some replies on the forums indicated, it does give new users an impression that might lead to a decreased conversion-rate when it comes to sales. IMHO it's completely bizare to request donations to put out their commercial dumpsterfire.

The primary issue is not the lack of articles IMHO.
It's the lack of a consistent UX design, to provide foundation for the documentation:
It simply looks like the docs team didn't hire professional UX designer(s) before making this... docs things.
It looks and feels like the UX from Freenas 9 with a fancyfied skin on top. It simply isn't consistent with the solid UX the product has.

Is the UX for the TrueNAS product perfect? No, absolutely not.
But it's relatively consistent and generally quick to navigate... Thats good UX in my book

With docs, I at least expect some consistentcy with the product UX (and UI) ...

 

[danb35]

I find a lot of things wrong with the argument "Free Users need to donate, to support enterprise grade documentation for the enterprise customers".

Not least of which is that their handling of user-contributed documentation has been, well, pretty bad. I've lost track of how many times they've had their wiki up and then taken it down with all its data.

 

[Constantin]

To be Frank, I personally view the documentation as something that is primarily aimed at making the product Enterprise Grade (just like support packages are). I find a lot of things wrong with the argument "Free Users need to donate, to support enterprise grade documentation for the enterprise customers".

Allow me to disagree in the context that iXsystems has graciously made their enterprise-grade software available to you and me at no cost. From a management perspective, every decision has to be backed by a cost-benefit analysis, and if we the users just mooch along without paying for the development time, then we should not be surprised if management doesn't consider our concerns to be salient to running their business.

While I did buy a XL+ to start with, I subsequently branched out to a different chassis and more-capable motherboard (I also bought some add-ons like the private-labeled 10GbE card). I didn't like the heat issues I encountered in the AbleCom CS-T80 chassis with my 4TB HGST drives, and the Mini-ITX form factor limitation precluded the kind of motherboard I wanted to use.

That's not a criticism of IXsystems, it is virtually impossible to meet the needs of all users and the Mini series seems to be aimed at helping new admins cut their teeth on a non-production server before graduating to the big stuff. But since I am not buying IXsystems-labeled hardware anymore yet care about FreeNAS development, I believe it is imperative to contribute financially the way that hardware purchases would have (via their respective gross margins).

That doesn't guarantee me a right to have a seat at the table but it does allow management to receive feedback, resources, etc. if they want it.

All that said, if IXsystems is serious about enterprise customers to adopt a 12.0 product, every part of the documentation, product, etc. ought to be complete. Otherwise, every manager whose neck is on the line re: a change to their server configuration will wait for several iterations after the initial release and hopefully be met with more complete documentation, fewer known bugs, and so on. If IXSystems is OK with a slow adoption of 12.x then that might explain why documentation is taking a back seat.

Some may also intuit that the folk at IXSystems are not bothering with a complete set of documentation because they are internally still treating TrueNAS 12 software as beta. In that context, incomplete documentation makes more sense, as anticipated changes will obviate previous work product. No point to have it all ready for release until they internally consider the core aspects of the UI to be stable.

 

[Stilez]

iXsystems has graciously made their enterprise-grade software available to you and me at no cost. From a management perspective, every decision has to be backed by a cost-benefit analysis, and if we the users just mooch along without paying for the development time, then we should not be surprised if management doesn't consider our concerns to be salient to running their business.

I don't want to distract, from the topic, but open source is a synergistic relationship. The product is made available to a wide community sure. The flip side is that within that large community, a proportion will want to contribute back their free time and effort, making it possible to test and improve the product, usually far beyond what the creators could achieve alone commercially. The community here, allows IX to be more sure it's a solid product. It spots issues and help debugging. It spreads the word, as personal users, more than a huge amount of money at marketing could achieve. If IX lost all but its enterprise users, they would themselves be losers. If IX left its community unhappy enough, it would itself lose as commercial users and reviewers find less glowing answers over time, to the question of "What NAS do you recommend". The open sourcing of IXSystems excellent NAS and software is a synergy, where benefits flow both ways. Yes ultimately IX make the decisions, but hopefully not flying in the face of its community, not when it's this scale of concern..

Back to topic.

 

[ornias]

Allow me to disagree in the context that iXsystems has graciously made their enterprise-grade software available to you and me at no cost. From a management perspective, every decision has to be backed by a cost-benefit analysis,

I think you don't really get me at all.

The feedback I give IS NOT about me.
I personally don't give a flying flip about the docs, free, paid or otherwise.

and if we the users just mooch along without paying for the development time, then we should not be surprised if management doesn't consider our concerns to be salient to running their business.

Again: It isn't about me.
But If someone asks me to vett if this project is ready for professional enterprise use, I can not say "yes" at the moment, because I expect enterprise-grade documentation for enterprise customers.

I want to say "yes", because I like the project as a free user.
But I cannot like it any paid capacity due to this docs issue.

Get it?
A lot of people here are there in two capacities: Professional AND private individual
Private "individual me says: Great product, shame about shitty docs but meh, don't use docs anyway"
Professional me says: "These docs are unacceptable for a professional product"

*Edit*
To be clear:
If IX said: "Those docs are free docs for our opensource customers and we have professional documentation for paying customers"
I would've said:
"Shame those are so bad, but they are free and shame you guys pulled the same stunt as Nextcloud by putting docs behind a paywall."

But in that case my complaint wouldn't have been te quality. Pay-none=expect-none.
Except: In this case it's the same docs they ship with expensive professional product. All I (and more here) are saying, either fix this, fix the old docs... Or this is costing sales.

 

[ChrisRJ]

Since I had decided for my new build (about 2-3 months ago) to use FreeNAS 11.3U5, I wasn't aware of the state of documentation for TrueNAS. For the same reason, I cannot comment on whether or not I think the situation is as bad as some portray it here. But I would like to throw in two points.

The first argument is about enterprise-grade. In my day job I have a background in enterprise software, where we talk about millions of transactions and huge losses, if something goes wrong. In that kind of context, I would not see the documentation as the primary problem (you have a support contract with the vendor anyway). The much bigger issue is the FreeNAS Coral "incident". The latter is IMHO a demonstration of a colossal failure of the organization (from an external view). If my primary storage vendor had done something like this, I would have started a serious migration analysis immediately. The fact that we see this discussion now, is not encouraging to say the least.

The other argument comes from my "moonlighting job", where I do consulting for SMBs. For these guys something like Synology is already the better option in most cases. Simply because the usability is on a completely different level. Here the documentation is not that important either, because they would expect me to set things up for them. That is not to reject the complaints, but I think it also comes back to overall impression.

This post turned out a bit different from what I envisioned when I started. But I think that it basically comes back to what has already been said: The issue is not the problem, but how it is being dealt with. And the latter seems to have room for improvement.

 

[danb35]

the FreeNAS Coral "incident". The latter is IMHO a demonstration of a colossal failure of the organization (from an external view).

I agree. Many of us were wondering at the time whether iX had truly learned the hard lessons from that incident--what I'm seeing now is not encouraging in that regard.

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

I for one don't perceive TrueNAS CORE to be all that different from FreeNAS 11.3. And the documentation for FreeNAS was good. So I really do not understand why it wasn't updated. A complete reference of what every single input field, selector and checkbox in the UI does is necessary.

 

[Constantin]

The 12.x documentation seems to focus more on the process of setting up a TrueNAS rather than a in-depth discussion of specific features and/or subsets unlike the older documentation. That approach has merit for neophyte Mini and Mini XL customers whose needs are modest and who don't need to know all the details (yet).

However, there is a significant user base that needs this underlying information because TrueNAS allows a wide range of customization. With that awesome flexibility comes a price - the user has to understand what all the bells and whistles can do or risk turning the NAS from a sportscar into a brick. This is especially relevant in a production environment and not everyone wants to be dependent on IXsystems to resolve every issue (even if the hardware support I have gotten there over the years has simply been fantastic).

That's the difference to Synology and like competitors - those UXs have been consolidated to the point where the NAS meets the needs of a general-use case but specifics, not so much. For example: when I added a cache to my Synology, it decided what to do with it. None of that metadata-only, small files, or whatever business. You may add cache and hopefully it helps.

12.x-specific new features like sVDEVs also merit more of a discussion than they currently get. Maybe not on the same page, but have a resource that the user can be linked to. Just like pool layout for specific use cases, the merits of various approaches to parity, and so on. The user has to be warned about beginner-mistakes like adding a single-drive VDEV to Z2 pool.

On the one hand, the 12.x documentation asks the community to contribute to this knowledge base. On the other hand, the current article makes no reference to excellent, community-vetted resource pages such as @jgreco PSU, @Chris Moore multiple motherboard resource guides, etc. In other words, the very resources the community has previously put together are being ignored. The graphics, layout, and so on are friendly, however.

Encircled warnings like "Drives added to a metadata vdev cannot be removed from the pool." may also be considered somewhat confusing. A user might read into this that said drive cannot be replaced if it needs be enlarged, replaced, or whatever. Based on my understanding of standard FreeNAS terminology, I think I understand the authors intent re: this warning, but if this guide is for new users, you're going to need some references back to the meaning of removing/replacing/etc. a disk from a pool.

I guess what I'm saying is that while this walkthrough approach has a lot of merit, it needs a solid backend like the current 11.3.x documentation to allow people to better understand what they are reading.

 

[morganL]

There some valid and invalid criticisms of my comments about 11.3-U5 documentation being better than 12.0-U1.

I think everyone who has commented has agreed with my factual observation about the current state. However, it is an observation and a recommendation for a user who is requiring excellent documentation now. FreeNAS 11.3-U5 is a high quality, stable and well documented release. TrueNAS 11.3-U5 is the same. Both documents have their heritage in 11.2 docs and have about 2 years of maturity. Does anyone disagree with this?

It is DEFINITELY not a statement of intent for where TrueNAS 12.0 documentation will be. The 12.0 software will mature and the documentation will get better as we apply resources to it and we accumulate content.

When we integrated FreeNAS and TrueNAS and we started the process of developing SCALE, we invested heavily in the software and the QA team, but did not grow the documentation team (Open Source has its financial constraints and documenting software before it is ready is expensive). We moved to a modular documentation system that allows contributions from a broader community. We expect the same documents to apply to TrueNAS CORE, Enterprise and SCALE in many cases. The documentation team has to battle with the large changes in software for TrueNAS 12.0 and SCALE.

So, TrueNAS 12.0 documentation is different. We think this modular style will be more productive and easier to manage in the longer term, but in the short term there has been more work to get it setup. There is a major ongoing effort to integrate documentation into our QA process and we expect that during the 12.0-U2 QA cycle we will get to a point where there is good completeness and integrity in the 12.0 docs. Every day (except Christmas and NY!) there is progress made.

Can the documentation UX be improved after that? Yes, but completeness and integrity are the short term goals (February). This is necessary for production users.

We do find that we get a lot of conflicting advice.... primarily because there are many user perspectives. A novice user is different from an experienced user who is different from a professional IT admin or software developer. TrueNAS 12 documentation needs to address all of these users. We expect modularity will eventually help us with this goal, but we are are still climbing the 1st hill and have yet to approach that mountain top.

For SCALE we have initially focussed on enabling developers to contribute and use the software with developers notes and inviting people to join the slack community. The next hill is making sure TrueNAS SCALE is documented before it is heavily used in production (Q2 21).

I hope this explains the strategy and some of the priorities. Please don't confuse current state with final state. Assume this is a journey and we are planning for long-term support of users. Users that invest in building a NAS often assume it will last 5 or more years (with HW replacements) and their data may survive much longer in the same ZFS ecosystem. Our goal is to serve that community and let it keep growing. We appreciate contributions and hope the new documentation site becomes a great way of finding and sharing knowledge.

 

[Stilez]

There some valid and invalid criticisms of my comments about 11.3-U5 documentation being better than 12.0-U1.

I think everyone who has commented has agreed with my factual observation about the current state. However, it is an observation and a recommendation for a user who is requiring excellent documentation now. FreeNAS 11.3-U5 is a high quality, stable and well documented release. TrueNAS 11.3-U5 is the same. Both documents have their heritage in 11.2 docs and have about 2 years of maturity. Does anyone disagree with this?

It is DEFINITELY not a statement of intent for where TrueNAS 12.0 documentation will be. The 12.0 software will mature and the documentation will get better as we apply resources to it and we accumulate content.

When we integrated FreeNAS and TrueNAS and we started the process of developing SCALE, we invested heavily in the software and the QA team, but did not grow the documentation team (Open Source has its financial constraints and documenting software before it is ready is expensive). We moved to a modular documentation system that allows contributions from a broader community. We expect the same documents to apply to TrueNAS CORE, Enterprise and SCALE in many cases. The documentation team has to battle with the large changes in software for TrueNAS 12.0 and SCALE.

So, TrueNAS 12.0 documentation is different. We think this modular style will be more productive and easier to manage in the longer term, but in the short term there has been more work to get it setup. There is a major ongoing effort to integrate documentation into our QA process and we expect that during the 12.0-U2 QA cycle we will get to a point where there is good completeness and integrity in the 12.0 docs. Every day (except Christmas and NY!) there is progress made.

Can the documentation UX be improved after that? Yes, but completeness and integrity are the short term goals (February). This is necessary for production users.

We do find that we get a lot of conflicting advice.... primarily because there are many user perspectives. A novice user is different from an experienced user who is different from a professional IT admin or software developer. TrueNAS 12 documentation needs to address all of these users. We expect modularity will eventually help us with this goal, but we are are still climbing the 1st hill and have yet to approach that mountain top.

For SCALE we have initially focussed on enabling developers to contribute and use the software with developers notes and inviting people to join the slack community. The next hill is making sure TrueNAS SCALE is documented before it is heavily used in production (Q2 21).

I hope this explains the strategy and some of the priorities. Please don't confuse current state with final state. Assume this is a journey and we are planning for long-term support of users. Users that invest in building a NAS often assume it will last 5 or more years (with HW replacements) and their data may survive much longer in the same ZFS ecosystem. Our goal is to serve that community and let it keep growing. We appreciate contributions and hope the new documentation site becomes a great way of finding and sharing knowledge.

Valid.

I hope it turns out that way as we look back, later in the coming year

In light of the current state I'd like to check an explicit aspect, and I hope the reply will be not just positive, but reliable and held to, whatever it may be.

Are you saying in effect, "trust us, we will get the depth and comprehensiveness back, as they used to be, even if in a different format, during the coming year"?

If that's actually what you mean then immediately, I can live with that. Blips happen and a 6-9 month docs blip because resources is livable. Destruction of docs that used to eezist and dumbing down, without equivalent replacement, would be a problem and that's what this has felt like as a slippery slope.

I have one other question. A number of replies comment as to an IX wiki, and its unreliability, being said to be created and killed several times, so that users don't wish to contribute that way, or are sceptical of its value/durability. While we are sorting things out, what's actually gone on there and what is needed so users can freely input docs and info, and its *not* lost again? Why, actually, github and not a wiki? (Wiki's can support a module that only releases changes to view when they have been approved, for certain categories or criteria of users, if that's an issue.)