Oh that's great. Users of the system are aware of an undocumented feature, write a new package that use it, but don't take 5 minutes to document the feature.
Until our community starts taking documentation seriously, the toolkit is going to continue to suck for new developers. It already sucks today because there are plenty of web technologies out there that don't follow the RTFSCA (Read The Fine Source Code Already) philosophy.
I quote from our first ever full article on a major magazine (that I'm aware of - LinuxJournal this month):
"There's no way getting around it: OpenACS is a complex beast. Although the software is generally excellent, it requires an experienced UNIX/web/database hacker to use and modify it. Even the installation procedure is long and complicated, and I can assure you from personal experience that it's often hard to understand where you have made a mistake. The documentation is improving but there are many gaping holes and difficult-to-understand table structures that can be confusing."
Now it seems that that's the way our community _wants_ the toolkit because we keep writing code without function documentation, without user documentation, without any documentation; packages without even a description in the .info file. We have blatant holes in our documentation but still only one or two people touch our docs.
If that's the kind of toolkit we want (not me), than that's the kind of toolkit we'll have.
