ConTeXt comes with full source code, so users can easily study the
source code.
This is crazy. Sorry, you can’t expect users to be able to do that. Lamport created LaTeX *and* wrote the “LaTeX User’s Guide and Reference manual”. The authors mentioned below were all developers too. You need that level of understanding to write a manual.
The project could easily employ two people to work full
time just to keep up with the pace of development (once they would
catch up).
I would expect it to be far less than that once you have the documentation. What a project needs is discipline. If the ConTeXt stays a tinkered-tool-in-flux (because that is how Hans needs it for his own work), a decent manual will never arrive unless there is the discipline that any new functionality is documented (“user manual & reference”) in full before proceeding to the next development.
It’s suspect to take umbrage on another’s behalf, but “tinkering researchers may not be inclined to do that, they want to tinker” — It’s absurd to suggest that Hans &co. are “tinkering” for the sake of tinkering.
I never suggested that. Hans & Co tinker because they want to make progress and develop functionality they need. But because the project is in constant flux, even if you would have time (money) to fund documentation, the documentation would be out-of-date soon.
I would immediately buy any book that explains ConTeXt such as the books that are there for LaTeX. But then, LaTeX is moribund and doesn’t change at all. An easier target.
Hans & Taco: how much money would need to be raised to produce something of the quality of Kopka & Daly’s “Guide to LaTeX”? or Goossens, Mittelbach & Samarin’s “The LaTeX Companion”? Because, I don’t think this will happen unless some money is raised to pay for it.
I would gladly donate in a crowdfunding initiative for a good book. But how much is needed to make it happen?
G