Is there anything wrong with what I did? I can revert the change if there are opponents. I really don't mean to be too pushy or anything. It's just that we seem to have discussed the nav pane changes, and the model was posted on the sandbox. I apologize if this was not too elegant :)
Cheers, Nadya >-----Original Message----- >From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:25 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane > >Where did governance go? > >On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote: > >> Changed nav pane has been committed. >> Can continue with cosmetic changes, but at least we have the changes >> visible now. Phjuh. >> >> Cheers, >> Nadya >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:34 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane >>> >>> >>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote: >>> >>>> Geir, >>>> Thanks for a prompt reply. I'm glad you're on the OK side :) >>> >>> By that I mean that the current menu as currently on the site is >>> ok... >>> >>>> Specifics per your concerns: >>>> - ASF and Other Projects links - suggest that we add these to the >>>> General list >>> >>> ASF already was in the general list. Other Projects seems >>> appropriate for a community section. >>> >>>> - wiki - we have mobile data there and I don't see what's wrong with >>>> having it in the Documentation. >>> >>> I don't understand what you mean here. >>> >>>> - policy and guidelines: guidelines seems a gathering of multi-topic >>>> info, suggest that we restructure it, several ideas below. >>> >>> I agree we should restructure it. >>> >>>> >>>> <we're drifting toward issue (2 - some generic pages need >>>> improvement) > >>>> >>>> Current project guidelines content and suggestions: >>>> * People, Places, and Things: defines roles of committer, >> contributor, >>>> PMC (btw, is outdated) - can go into Who We Are (former committers' >>>> page) >>> >>> Why? >>> >>>> * Status: tells wrong N/A info about status files - should be >>>> removed >>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> * Voting: describes +1/-1 votes etc - can go into Policy or into >>>> Resolution guidelines >>> >>> No - contribution policy is something very special and specific to >>> this project, something no other ASF project has. I think that >>> mixing it with canonical ASF project governance concepts is wrong. >>> >>>> * Types of action items: defines types of issues by severity and >>>> specifics - can fit naturally into Issue Resolution Guidelines >>>> since it >>>> describes issues that are further resolved :) >>> >>> Don't agree. There are "big picture" issue governance, and detail >>> governance. >>> >>>> * When to commit a change: gives generics on comits; is info for >>>> committers only - can go into committers or Get Involved page or >> issue >>>> resolution since it explain issue resolution by patch commit >>> >>> could be >>> >>>> * Patch format: tips on how to create patches - fits into Get >>>> Involved, >>>> subheading How to Create and Submit A Patch or Enhancement. >>> >>> Yep >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Nadya >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:55 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> After a long-long pause, I'm restarting the thread about our >> website >>>>>> navigation menu and generic pages that require improvement. I hope >>>>>> that >>>>>> after the New Year all the emotions have boiled down and we can >> move >>>>>> over this quickly :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Key ideas that were gathered during the review of the sandbox >>>>>> copy of >>>>>> website: >>>>>> (1) navigation menu is mostly ok though several improvements are >>>>>> possible >>>>> >>>>> I'm in the "it's ok" camp. There are tweaks, but I still don't see >>>>> where major change is needed. >>>>> >>>>>> (2) some generic pages require improvement because they're >>>>>> outdated >>>> or >>>>>> do not contain required info or don't deliver their main idea >>>>>> clearly >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>>> (3) starting page does not give a clear idea of where our project >> is >>>> - >>>>>> for a newcomer >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>>> Let's address these one by one. This letter is about (1) only. For >>>> (2) >>>>>> and (3), I'll send patches per page so that we don't miss anything >>>>>> during the review. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the nav pane, I've a patch ready and waiting for your >>>>>> approval to >>>>>> commit. If you are strongly against a change suggested, let's >>>>>> discuss >>>>>> this. New version: >>>>>> >>>>>> General >>>>>> * Home >>>>>> * License >>>>>> * Contribution Policy >>>>>> * Downloads >>>>>> * FAQ >>>>>> (removed references to ASF and project guidelines because the >>>>>> Guidelines >>>>>> actually have info on a number of very different topics, we can >>>>>> try >>>>>> and >>>>>> find a better place for them; having Policy *and* Guidelines >>>>>> confuses >>>>>> many people) >>>>> >>>>> We're an ASF project - please put the ASF link back. >>>>> >>>>> who has been confused by having "Contribution Policy" and "Project >>>>> Guidelines"? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Community >>>>>> * Get Involved >>>>>> * Who we are >>>>>> * Mailing Lists >>>>>> * Bug Tracker >>>>>> (removed Documentation (useless page), FAQ is above now, Wiki >>>>>> is in >>>>>> docs >>>>>> now, renamed Committers > Who we are (might not be the best name, >>>>>> but >>>>>> the page can be about PMC, committers and contributors, why only >> the >>>>>> committers?); moved JIRA to this list and renamed > Bug Tracker as >>>> the >>>>>> more generic term) >>>>> >>>>> Ok >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Development >>>>>> * Source Code >>>>>> * Getting Started (link for contributors) >>>>>> * Project Roadmap >>>>>> * Resolution Guideline >>>>>> (removed How are we Doing (useless page), moved roadmap lower to >>>>>> make >>>>>> Source code stand out, removed Other projects (rarely used page), >>>>>> added >>>>>> Resolution guideline) >>>>> >>>>> We should keep the "Other Projects" and keep it up to date. Why >>>>> are >>>>> Resolution Guidlines not in docs? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Documentation >>>>>> * Sitemap >>>>>> * Wiki >>>>>> * HDK >>>>>> * DRLVM >>>>>> * Class Libraries >>>>>> * Build-test Framework >>>>>> (renamed Subcomponents > Documentation; added sitemap (the file >>>> itself >>>>>> is under development now), added wiki link here, added HDK page >>>>>> (discussible, but hope to have a nice patch to describe our >>>>>> deliverable >>>>>> there); removed classlib status (outdated, we can have Wiki >> instead) >>>>> >>>>> Uh, I'm not a big fan of having important info on the Wiki. can we >>>>> put that back? I think it's important to have that kind of >>>>> stuff in >>>>> one place, here on the site. >>>>> >>>>> geir >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> nadya
