Hi James, Wiki looks great now. On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:27 AM Isaac Kamga <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello James, > > You've done a very great job organizing those pages on Confluence. > > The entire Wiki looks new and feels refreshing. More grease to your elbows. > > Cheers, > Isaac Kamga. > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:25 AM James Dailey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi All - > > > > I've made a bunch of changes to the navigation and structure of the wiki. > > > > I'd like to know if I should deprecate additional pages. For example, > are > > we still relying on the specifications under > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Apache+Fineract+1.0+Functional+Specifications > > > > > > By Deprecating them, we would indicate that they no longer are > > authoritative. So, I think the question - are these pages still > accurate? > > > > James Dailey > > skype: jdailey > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:25 AM James Dailey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Myrle - totally agree we don't want to have copy and paste going > > > on. Jira tickets are canon. > > > > > > I immediately found that a macro insert works --> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Test+page > > > but only for infra tickets. I'll work on figuring this out. > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > > > > > @jdailey67 > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:39 AM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> If you're going to be carrying over information from Jira, you should > > look > > >> into whether its possible to use the jira integration in confluence so > > >> that > > >> it can be done automatically. Then create shared filters on release > > >> numbers and you have "one source of truth" rather than spreading > > >> information between two systems and leaving everyone to wonder which > is > > >> canonical. > > >> > > >> I don't know though if this will work without Infra involvement. You > > may > > >> need to ask. > > >> > > >> Best Regards, > > >> Myrle > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:36 AM James Dailey <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Isaac -- Thanks for the input. I'd also like to have community > > >> members > > >> > be able to more easily understand the needs and the priorities. > Some > > of > > >> > that, I hope, can be incorporated into the FAQ. > > >> > > > >> > At the risk of expanding this topic just a tad, there should be a > norm > > >> for > > >> > a newbie to: > > >> > * Consult the main page, consult the FAQ, high level pages on wiki > > >> > * Join the listserv > > >> > * Browse some tickets > > >> > * Set up dev environment (if coding) or demo environment (if > > >> documentation > > >> > or UI) > > >> > * Dig further into wiki > > >> > * Ask questions about specific tasks or code on the list > > >> > > > >> > I take Myrle's suggestion as to not have a roadmap that makes the > > >> project > > >> > look bad when we don't meet specific dates and capabilities. We want > > an > > >> > accurate reflection of the level of work going on and the actual > > >> > priorities. The PMC report has had good information about what is > > >> actually > > >> > going on. > > >> > > > >> > Looking at just roadmaps, we want to focus, I think, on three > levels: > > >> > > > >> > *Level A)* high level product roadmap - laying out broad areas of > > >> > improvement or enhancement to communicate "what would be useful?" ; > > >> > in my mind, the high level community roadmap should be something > > >> that > > >> > is able to be referenced and not changed much over an 18 month > period > > >> > this should not have dates, more about priorities > > >> > > > >> > *Level B)* roadmap of specific enhancements that stand in for the > lack > > >> of > > >> > "Epics" in apache jira set up. This may be too labor intensive so > > only > > >> > should be done for specific higher profile things. ("Epics" are > high > > >> > level, can be related to a product need, and reference multiple jira > > >> > tickets) > > >> > > > >> > *Level C)* a bit more controversial perhaps, but one thing I know > > about > > >> > open source projects is that they (we) should also have the > > >> "anti-roadmap", > > >> > the areas that fineract does NOT intend to do. Why? This gives > space > > >> for > > >> > the commercial users of the code to come up with add-ons and > wrappers > > >> that > > >> > then create the virtuous cycle of contribution. That anti-roadmap > > >> should be > > >> > fairly broadly stated. e.g. we won't develop deployment tools or > > >> training > > >> > materials.... we leave that to other players in market > > >> > > > >> > So, I think for now, I'd like to mark "To-be-deprecated" on pages > that > > >> are > > >> > not active, haven't been updated in over 12 months. If they are > > actually > > >> > active and relevant, then the person involved in maintaining that > page > > >> can > > >> > easily remove that term, and if not, then after a reasonable period > of > > >> time > > >> > - say 30 days - we put those pages into full Deprecated status. > > >> > > > >> > Given the discussion thus far and using our lazy consensus approach, > > I'm > > >> > going to move forward on the restructuring first. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > jdailey > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:49 PM Isaac Kamga <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hello James, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the immense efforts you're putting into making the wiki > > >> more > > >> > > visible and supple. > > >> > > > > >> > > Besides being open source best practice, I think the community > > roadmap > > >> > > should be left there given it provides clarity to volunteers, puts > > >> open > > >> > > issues in context and doesn't coerce anyone with tight deadlines. > > >> > > > > >> > > Cheers, > > >> > > Isaac Kamga. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:56 PM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hey James, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The FAQ looks good. Really good. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I like your proposed restructuring of the Wiki too. I would > > suggest > > >> > two > > >> > > > changes: > > >> > > > * Leave a space for discussing/document architecture/design > > >> decisions. > > >> > > > * Remove the roadmap. We are mostly volunteers. We shouldn't > be > > >> > making > > >> > > > promises about future development. We'll only be making liars > out > > >> of > > >> > > > ourselves. And besides, this area is mostly duplication of Jira > > >> > anyways, > > >> > > > so creating an area like this creates unnecessary data > duplication > > >> > > > efforts. Or it means the task data are being captured solely in > > >> > > > confluence, which just is less good than jira for that purpose. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > But since I won't have time to help you on it, you can take my > > >> opinions > > >> > > or > > >> > > > leave them. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Best Regards, > > >> > > > Myrle > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:51 AM James Dailey < > > >> [email protected]> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Devs - > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I have noted a number of emails from people with basic > questions > > >> > about > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > project and have tried to collate those into a FAQ. Please > see > > my > > >> > > > changes > > >> > > > > to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/FAQ. > > If > > >> you > > >> > > > > object, either respond to this email or make comments on the > > page > > >> > > itself. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > As previously communicated I am also thinking we need to > change > > >> the > > >> > > > > structure of the navigation for the project - the left side > > "Page > > >> > Tree" > > >> > > > at > > >> > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Fineract+Home ; > > >> > > > > While it is now familiar to many of us, to a new person I > think > > it > > >> > > > remains > > >> > > > > very confusing. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > @Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> please suggest if this is > > >> > something > > >> > > > > you'd like to collaborate on... > > >> > > > > The structure I think should follow this with other content > > below > > >> > these > > >> > > > > two top levels: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. Getting Involved & Community Norms > > >> > > > > 1. Getting Started > > >> > > > > 2. PMC reports > > >> > > > > 3. Contributors & Committers > > >> > > > > 4. How To Articles > > >> > > > > 2. Fineract > > >> > > > > 1. Roadmap > > >> > > > > 2. Releases > > >> > > > > 3. Getting started (pull out specifics to Fineract1.x) > > >> > > > > 4. Functional specs > > >> > > > > 5. User Zones > > >> > > > > 3. Fineract CN > > >> > > > > 1. Roadmap > > >> > > > > 2. Releases > > >> > > > > 3. Getting started (pull out specifics to Fineract-CN) > > >> > > > > 4. Functional specs > > >> > > > > 5. User Zones > > >> > > > > 4. Blog & Outbound Communications > > >> > > > > 1. Presentations Given > > >> > > > > 2. Speech text > > >> > > > > 5. FAQ > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > -- RAHUL GOEL +91-9873124753
