This is a gigantic task ... what would we be testing here? A test to identify which binaries in a package do not have a corresponding man page?

If we build a list of missing man pages ... how do we entice developers (upstream and fedora) to begin writing man pages?

This is a big task but no bigger then writing test cases for each component.

I was hoping for the identifying part we could use one of the cloud resources
part of some automation process ( essentially a script that checks this ).

Perhaps the doc team could tackle this..

How we entice people to do this beer? :)

not all files!
only files that are:

• runnable, in $PATH, or
• configuration files in /etc

Bug report should have higher priority if the package is included in default install. Somewhat lower, but still important enough priority for additional packages.

Also check translations!

question: Are all languages equally imporant? Which ones should be supported?

All languages are equally important. The most active languages in the translation community will translate fastest I suppose..

This doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, and I'm not sure it really makes most sense as a QA ticket. If anything the intent - 'all executables and configuration files should have a man page' - should be a packaging guideline, and so far as 'enforcement' goes, I would think it would be most appropriate to make it an AutoQA test, so that would be filed as an autoqa trac ticket.

This issue has been migrated to Fedora Forge:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/quality/tickets/issues/6

Please continue any further discussion there.