On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Alex Salazar wrote:
Craig,
Can you clarify?
We decided to allow the community at large to edit documentation and
were
flexible on the CLA issue, could that content be autoexported to
shiro.apache.org so that it looked good and loaded quickly in a
browser?
I think you're asking for trouble allowing the public to edit
documentation that then automatically becomes part of the official web
site (as opposed to "community discussion").
Is it really too much to ask that folks who can publish on the
official site register and acknowledge that they are intending to
contribute to the project (via a CLA)?
Craig
Alex
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Alex Salazar <[email protected]>
wrote:
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!
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
