On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:06 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> WEBSITE, IN GENERAL
>>
>> I traded some mails with Gavin Baumanis about website design stuff
>> yesterday. We had indeed suffered a miscommunication about who was forging
>> ahead on the plan. Gavin is hoping to start submitting patches next week on
>> this.
>
> As a drive-by comment, I haven't sifted through the mails to find out
> where the subversion.apache.org current placeholder source is
> residing, but it's probably worthwhile to throw in a link to "Oh, if
> you're looking for Apache's instance of Subversion for all of the ASF
> projects, go to svn.apache.org" or similar language. (The reverse of
> the header we used to have at svn.collab.net. *grin*) We should
> probably tweak the header on svn.apache.org as well...
>
>> WIKI USAGE
>>
>> The general sense I got from some members of the Apache community about
>> using a Wiki has led me to believe that the barrier to entry for community
>> contribution is just going to be too high to bother with. It appears that
>> we *can* get a Wiki, but contributors would need to be CLA-covered. And as
>> with the sentiment around posting our doxygenized docs, I expect that we
>> would have to somehow advertise the Wiki as "for developer usage only"
>> (work-in-progress, use-at-your-own-risk, etc). So, far too restricted to
>> see meaningful usage as a part of our primary website. That, plus the fact
>> that it would be harder to get patches against wiki-ized material, means
>> that I'm backing off the idea for now.
>>
>> Maybe we'll start using a dev-only Wiki in the future, though. (I'd
>> certainly enjoy seeing the entirety of our notes directory moved to such a
>> thing.)
>
> No, I don't believe that those people on general@ were conveying
> Apache policies properly.
>
> Here's the deal:
>
> - We can have a wiki that is open to everyone without a need for a CLA.
>
> - However, if you want a wiki that automatically produces/exports the
> authoritative subversion.apache.org site, then it should be restricted
> to only committers of the project. This makes sense as it restricts
> folks from p0wning subversion.apache.org.
>
> So, most projects have two wikis: one for the site and one for
> everyone else. Stuff like our notes and such are perfect for the
> open-to-everyone wiki.
I'd actually like to see notes/ in the controlled-by-committers area (whether a wiki, versioned html or versioned text) and stuff like random links, clients and other user-useful stuff in the everyone-can-edit wiki.
>> <rant>I realize that the ASF needs to dot its I's and cross its T's,
>> legally, but so far my experience herein has been not so glowingly positive
>> from a community building perspective. "No nit left unpicked", or somesuch.
>> I'm choosing for now to just trust that this is ultimately beneficial to
>> everyone -- that perhaps the result of all of this is that the ASF refines
>> some of its otherwise vague guidelines around such apparently disputable
>> topics like "releases".</rant>
>
> For the purposes of our community, just pay attention to your mentors
> (me, Greg, Sander, Dan): we'll let you know what you need to know. =P
Which of you plans to sign off on our December status report: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2009
> There's about a bazillion cooks in the Incubator kitchen and most of
> them disagree on just about everything.
>
> So, feel free to ask one of us if you get frustrated... *grin* -- justin
Received on 2009-12-10 20:03:10 CET