I dare to assume that many involved and active people are not confortable with git/gitlab/gittea/...
Once I have got something to shareI will be happy to so, the more eyes and minds go over it, the better. I am a lonely writer, though. Please do not be disappointed, I do prefer coming up with something to myself and only sharing if it is at a certain level of "completeness".
As I wrote, I find it bittersweet we - collectively, including me - have not grasped fully what that means.
"Take the people as they are, because there are no others"- Konrad Adenauer, the first chancelor of the modern Germany
Now, which model is used in the real world by Burger King, yours or mine?
The problem is that it depends on chance (and the algorithms of the search engine) which documentation ends up in the top ranks.
However, a certain number of different versions would have to be kept available in parallel. This is also a barrier for newcomers ("Yes, which version is mine???").This knot is difficult to dissolve. A spontaneous idea would be to keep the hub's own documentation, but to prevent it from being (completely) crawled/indexed. And a central documentation for several versions (if they differ significantly) would have to be kept ready to be indexed by search engines. Within the decentralised-local documentation, one could additionally refer to this documentation - suitable version.
If this sections could be moved separately into Admin area and member help would become much clearer and understandable with guides for most frequent things, It would be valuable for newcomers.
One method is to get an account at the current centralized git repo at Framasoft
However, this centralized option, which is fine and works, has been an available option for years, but you are not happy with the result so far, so maybe it does not work that well?Enter many good suggestions for improvements in this thread, which does not depend on the old way.However, I would say any solution which rely on other centralized software is just a new take on the old, saying to the world "yup, our own decentralized publishing solution sucks so bad we have to use those other centralized solutions". Such a result would be sad, not true, and counter-productive for promoting the Fediverse.
Hubzilla can be implemented offline, somebody can happily use it connecting communities via wifi in the dessert, in the forest, in countries cut from internet, which can happen anytime in Iran, China, Russia, Kazakchstan, Burma. Hubzilla can also be used in organisations internally connecting systems. Having all needed documentation locally is better.
When I wanted to create an account on Framagit, I could never use it because the account is always awaiting approval by an administrator.
The previously uninformed searcher may thus come across documentation that is located on an instance with an older Hubzilla version... and he may thus receive "outdated" information. He may end up frustrated because he then creates an account and a channel on a hub with the brand new version and suddenly things are completely different.
This knot is difficult to dissolve. A spontaneous idea would be to keep the hub's own documentation, but to prevent it from being (completely) crawled/indexed. And a central documentation for several versions (if they differ significantly) would have to be kept ready to be indexed by search engines.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
self-hosted WordPress, self-hosted Drupal, etc. are not centralized solutions at all. They might not be federated, but they certainly are not centralized. Wikipedia is centralized. Facebook is centralized. But not self-hosted independent websites.
I once held this view too, probably over a decade ago. Times change, what I held to be sufficient to call something decentralized 15 years ago does not hold up in 2022. When your self-hosted site goes up in flames for the n-th time, you too may reconsider that position, but that is up to you.