# Contributor Interviews – David Taylor

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/contributor-interviews-david-taylor/80910
**Category:** Site feedback
**Tags:** contributor-interviews
**Created:** [February 19, 2018, 12:08am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/contributor-interviews-david-taylor/80910 "2018-02-19T00:08:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![erlend\_sh](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/erlend_sh/32/119475_2.png) [@erlend\_sh](https://meta.discourse.org/u/erlend_sh)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2018, 3:05am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/contributor-interviews-david-taylor/80910/4 "2018-02-27T03:05:47Z")

</div>

> [@baha](#):
>
> My point is: FOSS projects are maybe more prone to this issue (weak docs) because simply it’s more interesting to contribute code not docs! (think: agile manifesto’s working software over comprehensive documentation)

Yeah. I think another way of putting it is: Since Discourse is open source and allows you to go as far off the beaten path as you desire, the docs will appear weak every time you venture off that beaten (i.e. documented) path.

That said, there’s lots of things we could do to improve our docs, both in terms of content as well as presentation. The lowest hanging fruit is the content itself, which [the newly hired](https://meta.discourse.org/t/contributor-interviews-daniela-trash-now-dax/74900) @dax is actively working on.

> [@baha](#):
>
> What I want to wonder:
> 
> I’m (like most people) interested in AI and ML and it’s applications, and it’s being used in many places, so what about a FOSS project for Docs coverage (as in test coverage), won’t that be great?!

That’d be cool, but it’ll be up to the community to try this type of thing out and prove it has merit.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/contributor-interviews-david-taylor/80910)._