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>
> wrote:
>> 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>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NOTE: I'm making two assumptions here: (1) that we would never
>>>> consider
>>>> using a Wiki that didn't send page change notifications to our commits@
>>>> list
>>>> (or maybe a dedicated wiki@), and (2) that any wiki service that the
> ASF
>>>> 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? Why *not* have an area that anybody can edit, or through which edits from anybody can be moderated?
-Hyrum
Received on 2009-12-03 23:44:07 CET