OP here. Perhaps attempting to coerce orgmode upon others will satisfy the guarantee.
Personally, my org workflow eases collaboration with people, because it removes friction for me, going from thoughts -to-> working document + code examples + plaintext diagrams and more.
Frequently I have started technical, architectural, business documents in my local org file, and once I'm happy with it, exported to markdown for upload to the team wiki.
It is a hard sell for group collaboration, compared to, say, markdown. But I would also say that such things are very context-dependent and group policy-driven. e.g. I know of one or two groups that foreswore markdown for ASCIIDOC as their standard text format for collaboration.
Funny, I did it in both my current and previous job.
Wrote first draft in org, exported to docx. Then every time someone made a change, I'd export back to org and version control it. The other party never had any idea. It was much easier seeing the changes he made by diffing the org files than by using Word's track changes mode.
Just write it in Word in the first place. Seems like org just adds a step to your process, and the benefit is nebulous. Further, regenerating in org destroys reviewer comments, which you should preserve until you are done iterating.
Nothing wrong with that. The vast majority of my writing is for myself, and most of what I share is done in PDF or HTML format. I somewhat disagree with your claim though. Collaboration can take many forms, only one of which is multiple people editing the same document in its raw form.
Funny. Yesterday, I asked a co-worker to edit an org-mode document (it is plain text after all) that will be exported to Latex (because it is a lot easier to deal with Latex in org than to edit raw tex). To my surprise, he did not barf. Kudos to him, but yeah, I'm always apprehensive when I reveal my org workflow to colleagues.
I find that to coworkers unfamiliar with the editor holy wars or strong opinions on text formats they'll just think "this is an interestingly formatted text document" and make their update :D
That depends on the coworkers really. If you got coworkers, who understand, that it is simply plain text, and who have a half decent editor or IDE, they will have at least OK-ish syntax highlighting and should really not have any problem editing the file or collaborating on it.
OP here. Perhaps attempting to coerce orgmode upon others will satisfy the guarantee.
Personally, my org workflow eases collaboration with people, because it removes friction for me, going from thoughts -to-> working document + code examples + plaintext diagrams and more.
Frequently I have started technical, architectural, business documents in my local org file, and once I'm happy with it, exported to markdown for upload to the team wiki.
It is a hard sell for group collaboration, compared to, say, markdown. But I would also say that such things are very context-dependent and group policy-driven. e.g. I know of one or two groups that foreswore markdown for ASCIIDOC as their standard text format for collaboration.
writing in org just to export to markdown sounds very silly. what's the point? Emacs has markdown-mode.
That would indeed be silly.
Funny, I did it in both my current and previous job.
Wrote first draft in org, exported to docx. Then every time someone made a change, I'd export back to org and version control it. The other party never had any idea. It was much easier seeing the changes he made by diffing the org files than by using Word's track changes mode.
Just write it in Word in the first place. Seems like org just adds a step to your process, and the benefit is nebulous. Further, regenerating in org destroys reviewer comments, which you should preserve until you are done iterating.
Nothing wrong with that. The vast majority of my writing is for myself, and most of what I share is done in PDF or HTML format. I somewhat disagree with your claim though. Collaboration can take many forms, only one of which is multiple people editing the same document in its raw form.
Funny. Yesterday, I asked a co-worker to edit an org-mode document (it is plain text after all) that will be exported to Latex (because it is a lot easier to deal with Latex in org than to edit raw tex). To my surprise, he did not barf. Kudos to him, but yeah, I'm always apprehensive when I reveal my org workflow to colleagues.
I find that to coworkers unfamiliar with the editor holy wars or strong opinions on text formats they'll just think "this is an interestingly formatted text document" and make their update :D
That depends on the coworkers really. If you got coworkers, who understand, that it is simply plain text, and who have a half decent editor or IDE, they will have at least OK-ish syntax highlighting and should really not have any problem editing the file or collaborating on it.
Why should I collaborate with someone on my personal notes and GTD tasks?