I guess the premise of my post was to call for additional resources to be applied to getting the doc in a reasonable state and just complete the job of migrating to the new site.
My concern is that while it appears that a large chunk of resources have been applied to development, the documentation is seriously under resorced. This is clearly a major problem for the project as from first hand experinced it makes the cost of building snaps prohibitive.
I’m also concerned that there isn’t agreement on where the documentation is to be hosted.
Read this post and the comments from @popey.
Clean build - using LXC
From my perspective the experimental site it’s fine. The main criteria being that it is easy for the community to find and update the doco.
I think what we need right now is to:
Copy any content from the old site to the new site (even if it’s wrong).
Decommission the old doc site.
When responding to posts encourage the core team to update the doc and send a link to the doc rather than putting the answer directly in the post. From experinced with other projects this initially takes a bit more time but you quickly gain the time back as it reduces questions and improves the doc at a faster rate.
Have a resource spend some time to work out the structure on the documentation site and create an outline by creating placeholder chapter headings to give contributors some guidance where to place new content.
Have a resource that is tasked with overall responsibility for the documentation and has enough authority to ensure that core developers update the doco when they make changes.
The above steps will remove the current confusion,
Make the new doc site easy to find (as a newbie it was not easy to find).
Ensure the whole community is working in the same direction.
As an outsider I can see that snap potentially has a bright future but your single largest impediment to the community getting behind snap is the documentation.
Sorry if this comes off as a bit aggressive that’s not the intent.