On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:18:58 -0800, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:06 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
>>> NOTE: I'm making two assumptions here: (1) that we would never
>>> using a Wiki that didn't send page change notifications to our commits@
>>> (or maybe a dedicated wiki@), and (2) that any wiki service that the
>>> provided would be covered by their backup mechanisms.
>>> What say you?
>> I'd like to add one more thing here.
>> Presumably a primary goal in moving some content to a wiki is to be
>> able to widen the net of who can edit the pages. So we also need to
>> know how those controls work at ASF. While we may get tired of
>> applying and committing patches to some of the pages, it is a heck of
>> a lot better than a Wiki if these same users cannot just add the
>> content themselves.
> Re-reading, I see you touched on this a bit. I think you were
> implying we would open it up to anyone with an account to edit,
> provided there was an email list for the changes. I agree if that is
> where you were going.
Wiki pages should be editable by those with :
i. A cla on file.
ii. be a committer on the project that owns the wiki.
In other words the wiki content should be treated like code,
contributions from anyone outside the project would have to be sent as a
and applied by a committer.
Next up, just wanted to show you an example of the Confluence Wiki here at
Showing here the Apache ActiveMQ project as a great example:
This is their cwiki space where they edit:
This is where an autoexport tool applies their custom templates and turns
into static pages:
This is their main official website, where a rsync job updates it from the
So, it can look good and be easily editable too.
Anyway, food for thought.
Gav... (the other one)
Received on 2009-12-03 23:13:13 CET