Steve Litt's Process Hypothesis

[Steve LItt's Proccess Hypothesis](http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200304/200304.htm):
"If you consistently use an effective process for a given activity, you will be consistently successful at that activity."

@nelsonic This relates to #165 in so far as you speak of [leading by example](https://hbr.org/2016/10/like-it-or-not-you-are-always-leading-by-example) in respect to documentation.

My point of view is basically:
1. Process all the things
2. Document all the processes

My preference for this over leading by example for sharing implicit know-how (though leading by example still has a role to play), is that it fits in with the following related goals that I observe within dwyl culture:

1. The goal to share information to help other (why dwyl write these repos)
2. The goal to quickly ramp up folk in the on-boarding process (why dwyl are so thrilled with Elixir's system of documentation)
3. The goal to help starters in the field of technology efficiently learn with practical tutorials (why dwyl has such a heavy emphasis on helping starters all throughout its materials)

Relative to these goals, my preference is for _process all the things_ because the most difficult to come by information is not so much raw technical knowledge (loads of books, courses, videos, etc, etc) but _processes_ to help folk learn, apply, and document the information efficiently. For example, in #141 you spoke about writing a meta-tutorial aimed at teaching HTML and CSS. For me, what makes it _meta_ is that you will attempt to show a process for learning any new technology but applied specifically to HTML and CSS.

What would the process be if you abstracted it for any technology? The answer to that question would be something like a template for writing other meta-tutorials.