On Dec 4, 2009, at 3:53 AM, Gavin wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hyrum K. Wright [mailto:hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, 4 December 2009 8:44 AM
>> To: gavin_at_16degrees.com.au
>> Cc: Mark Phippard; C. Michael Pilato; Subversion Development; Gavin 'Beau'
>> Subject: Re: New website organization (html vs. wiki, and then some)
>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Gav... wrote:
>>> 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>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:06 PM, C. Michael Pilato
>>>>>> NOTE: I'm making two assumptions here: (1) that we would never
>>>>>> using a Wiki that didn't send page change notifications to our
>>>>>> (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,
>> wiki/documentation contributions from anyone outside the project would
>> have to be sent as a patch and applied by a committer.
>> I'm curious about this restriction/requirement. What's the purpose?
> Documentation, like code, is owned by the project, which in turn is overseen
> by the ASF. To help protect the projects and individuals we have policies in
> place to help do this. Having a CLA on file is a requirement to commit
> directly to any project whether that is code, documentation or anything
> else. Whether the website is generated from files in svn or a wiki the
> requirement is the same.
> From the Incubator website:
> Using A Wiki To Create Documentation
> Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the website)
> providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care must be taken to
> ensure that access to the wiki used to create documentation is restricted to
> only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC MUST review all changes and ensure that
> trust is not abused.
> I'd rather not get into the politics of *why* at this point, perhaps if
> folks want to persue ASF policies then they should join one of the
> legal/trademark lists. Or maybe Greg/Justin can jump in and clarify further.
> I'm here trying to be helpful to subversion project in general help find
> there feet here.
And we appreciate the help!
>> *not* have an area that anybody can edit, or through which edits from
>> anybody can be moderated?
> I'd say yes you can have a clearly marked unofficial wiki area. If
> committers then glean information from that to use in the official area that
> too would be fine as long as it is made clear that contributors to the wiki
> are granting the ASF license to do so.
> For instance, httpd server has a user editable wiki,
> (http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/) - this is unofficial and marked as being
> such. Their official documentation lives at httpd.apache.org. There is a
> difference between the two. From what I read, you want to use the wiki to
> become the official site documentation.
That's a good distinction and follows the lines I envision. Getting back to the original topic of the mail, a wiki would be nice for user-generated (and reviewed, of course) documentation, like FAQs, link lists, lists of Subversion clients, etc. This content is all a bit fluid, and if done under the oversight of a few developer-moderators, I think the wiki would be useful. Our current process is a bit to high-friction for this type of thing.
Official project docs, such as HACKING, information about the mailing lists, release processes, etc. should continue to be versioned and modifiable by only committers (while accepting reasonable patches, of course). Does this match the ASF paradigm you were talking about, Gavin?
Received on 2009-12-04 16:09:16 CET