A fair point. So for right now, in our current environment, I still think it makes sense to create a separate documentation wiki to keep the adding and editing permissions easy. Unless of course there's a simpler solution... I always like simpler solutions.
Alex On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alex Salazar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Great insight Craig. Do you know if there's any public discussion about > the > > move to a CMS? > > There's been plenty of chatter about it @infra. > > > So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make sense to > > just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one > anyways. > > And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig > > highlighted below where documentation and useful user contributions are > > stored. This could be restricted to people who register for the wiki and > > since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be > something > > most intent contributors would be ok with. > > Maybe, but I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. I > understand the reasons for moving to CMS but Confluence has proven to > lower barrier of entry for improved documentation and the upgrades > have helped performance enough to improve the state from nearly > catastrophic to mere drastic. Auto-exporting is just not the only to > to do Confluence backed sites, which is the main problem with the > current infrastructure. Tapestry is in the same boat and I'd assume a > quite a few other projects as well. Confluence itself is not going > away. > > Kalle > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> > >> It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to > >>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible > >>> under the Apache 2.0 license. I believe there is a 'cla' group in > >>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that > >>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages. > >>> > >>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're > >>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even > >>> those who haven't submitted a CLA? > >>> > >> > >> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their wikis as > >> they like, so this is really a project question. > >> > >> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our web > >> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf life > here > >> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that will > become > >> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.] > >> > >> > >>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this. For example, Jira > >>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue > >>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'. > >>> > >> > >> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says > >> > >> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache > License > >> ยง5) > >> > >> > >> > >> Can't that > >>> be the same for wiki edits? It would certainly reduce the barrier to > >>> entry for those who legitimately want to help. > >>> > >> > >> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache: > >> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to > project > >> committers) > >> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions > (should > >> be restricted to "known" users) > >> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy) > >> > >> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack it > and > >> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse. > >> > >> > >>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary... > >>> > >> > >> Please, no. > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> > >>> Les > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy > way > >>>> for > >>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth > discussing > >>>> how > >>>> we should handle this. The main reason I see this as a problem is > around > >>>> documentation. If the community at large can't touch the > documentation > >>>> then > >>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve. > >>>> > >>>> Here's the process I went through. > >>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity > >>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page > >>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link > >>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence > >>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project > >>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page > >>>> > >>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me. > >>>> > >>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and > found > >>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects. > There's > >>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form > >>>> community editing > >>>> > >>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of the > >>>> site. > >>>> BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to > create > >>>> an > >>>> account on their own wiki. > >>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces. One locked > >>>> down > >>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution. The > >>>> open > >>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation. > >>>> > >>>> I think the Felix route is probably best. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> Alex Salazar > >>>> 571-276-7777 > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> > >>> > >> Craig L Russell > >> Architect, Oracle > >> http://db.apache.org/jdo > >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] > >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > >> > >> > > >
