Hi, about >Just wondering. I thought we were having a discussion about that >stuff...
I double-checked the thread, seems like no more open navbar related issues remain. The recent emails mostly concern restructuring of project guidelines page. For example, the question where to place description of voting and types of action items is still open, and a potential extension of the Committers page with definition of committers and other project roles is under discussion. Cheers, Nadya >-----Original Message----- >From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:37 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane > > >On Jan 21, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote: > >> 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 :) >> > >Just wondering. I thought we were having a discussion about that >stuff... > >geir > > >> 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
