On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:06 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> > wrote: >> WEBSITE, IN GENERAL >> >> I traded some mails with Gavin Baumanis about website design stuff >> yesterday. We had indeed suffered a miscommunication about who was forging >> ahead on the plan. Gavin is hoping to start submitting patches next week on >> this. > > As a drive-by comment, I haven't sifted through the mails to find out > where the subversion.apache.org current placeholder source is > residing, but it's probably worthwhile to throw in a link to "Oh, if > you're looking for Apache's instance of Subversion for all of the ASF > projects, go to svn.apache.org" or similar language. (The reverse of > the header we used to have at svn.collab.net. *grin*) We should > probably tweak the header on svn.apache.org as well... > >> WIKI USAGE >> >> The general sense I got from some members of the Apache community about >> using a Wiki has led me to believe that the barrier to entry for community >> contribution is just going to be too high to bother with. It appears that >> we *can* get a Wiki, but contributors would need to be CLA-covered. And as >> with the sentiment around posting our doxygenized docs, I expect that we >> would have to somehow advertise the Wiki as "for developer usage only" >> (work-in-progress, use-at-your-own-risk, etc). So, far too restricted to >> see meaningful usage as a part of our primary website. That, plus the fact >> that it would be harder to get patches against wiki-ized material, means >> that I'm backing off the idea for now. >> >> Maybe we'll start using a dev-only Wiki in the future, though. (I'd >> certainly enjoy seeing the entirety of our notes directory moved to such a >> thing.) > > No, I don't believe that those people on general@ were conveying > Apache policies properly. > > Here's the deal: > > - We can have a wiki that is open to everyone without a need for a CLA. > > - However, if you want a wiki that automatically produces/exports the > authoritative subversion.apache.org site, then it should be restricted > to only committers of the project. This makes sense as it restricts > folks from p0wning subversion.apache.org. > > So, most projects have two wikis: one for the site and one for > everyone else. Stuff like our notes and such are perfect for the > open-to-everyone wiki.
I'd actually like to see notes/ in the controlled-by-committers area (whether a wiki, versioned html or versioned text) and stuff like random links, clients and other user-useful stuff in the everyone-can-edit wiki. >> <rant>I realize that the ASF needs to dot its I's and cross its T's, >> legally, but so far my experience herein has been not so glowingly positive >> from a community building perspective. "No nit left unpicked", or somesuch. >> I'm choosing for now to just trust that this is ultimately beneficial to >> everyone -- that perhaps the result of all of this is that the ASF refines >> some of its otherwise vague guidelines around such apparently disputable >> topics like "releases".</rant> > > For the purposes of our community, just pay attention to your mentors > (me, Greg, Sander, Dan): we'll let you know what you need to know. =P Which of you plans to sign off on our December status report: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2009 > There's about a bazillion cooks in the Incubator kitchen and most of > them disagree on just about everything. > > So, feel free to ask one of us if you get frustrated... *grin* -- justin
