While we're at it, I don't have karma either, can you add all committers?

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey Chris,
>
> I'm unable to login to the wiki anymore (maybe something to do with the
> upgrade). I created an account again (username: vinodkone,
> email:[email protected]). Would you mind granting me the karma again?
> Sorry for the trouble.
>
> Also, is it possible for non-committers to be given wiki access. I'm
> looking into giving edit access to our GSOC intern for example.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hey Vinod,
> >
> > I went ahead and added perms individually for you on the wiki.
> > Let me know if that worked.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > Senior Computer Scientist
> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> > Email: [email protected]
> > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <Mattmann>, jpluser <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > Date: Monday, June 17, 2013 5:37 PM
> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release process on wiki
> >
> > >Hey Vinod,
> > >
> > >I can assign individual permission to you I think, but I can't modify
> > >the mesos-committers group.
> > >
> > >I'll raise an issue with infra@ and see if they can give me the ability
> > >to modify the mesos-committers group (wiki admin perms). I have space
> > >admin perms atm.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > >Senior Computer Scientist
> > >NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > >Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> > >Email: [email protected]
> > >WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> > >University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Vinod Kone <[email protected]>
> > >Reply-To: "[email protected]"
> > ><[email protected]>
> > >Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:13 PM
> > >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release process on wiki
> > >
> > >>Btw Chris, do you have the ability to grant me edit access for the
> mesos
> > >>wiki page? I would like to use it to capture some stuff (e.g., new
> > >>feature
> > >>design)? If you don't I can create an INFRA ticket?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) <
> > >>[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Heya Vinod,
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>
> > >>> From: Vinod Kone <[email protected]>
> > >>> Reply-To: "[email protected]"
> > >>><[email protected]
> > >>> >
> > >>> Date: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:12 PM
> > >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]
> >
> > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release process on wiki
> > >>>
> > >>> >Thanks Chris for your POV. I think we all agree that Wiki is more
> user
> > >>> >friendly than git. But my (and likely others) concerns are
> > >>> >
> > >>> >1) If docs are editable on both wiki and git, then which one is the
> > >>> >authoritative source? If one of them goes stale, which one should
> the
> > >>> >user/contributor refer to?
> > >>>
> > >>> Great question -- why does one have to be the authoritative source
> over
> > >>> the other? It's quite possible that they won't have overlapping
> > >>>content.
> > >>> And if they do, it really only costs us an email to a (potentially
> > >>> confused)
> > >>> user pointing them at the right source. This requires us to be active
> > >>>on
> > >>> the dev lists and responsive and looking to help -- Mesos right now
> > >>> definitely
> > >>> fits that bill. I'm sure you or Ben H or Ben M or Andy or anyone else
> > >>> (even me!) :)
> > >>> may be able to point peeps in the right direction on that.
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >2) How to keep the docs in sync? If some one edits the docs in the
> > >>>wiki,
> > >>> >how do we get it into our git repo? This involves PMC/Committer to
> > >>> >shepherd
> > >>> >no? Then why not involve pmc/committer early and circumvent the wiki
> > >>>edit?
> > >>>
> > >>> Who sez they have to be in sync? Like I said they could be
> overlapping
> > >>> content,
> > >>> or not. If they are overlapping then one can grow stale but I would
> > >>> estimate the
> > >>> cost function for that to be minimal. And it may be driven by our own
> > >>> interest
> > >>> to fix this or we may have some superstar user that fixes it for us
> > >>>that we
> > >>> then nominate for PMC and then sign them up for this fantastic task
> > >>>(heh).
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >3) How easy is it to associate documentation to releases in Wiki?
> Its
> > >>> >straightforward when we work in the repo.
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 release docs shipping with releases makes perfect sense to me. No
> > >>>reason
> > >>> though that there can't be complementary (even overlapping) docs on
> the
> > >>> wiki.
> > >>> No biggie.
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Maybe, one way we could let users use wiki to contribute is, if
> there
> > >>>is
> > >>> >tooling available that can generate a ReviewBoard patch when someone
> > >>>edits
> > >>> >a wiki, ala github pull request to RB patch?
> > >>>
> > >>> Haha, yikes that sounds like work for you guys (PMC) that you don't
> > >>>need
> > >>> to do.
> > >>> Let users and contributors edit the wiki to the hearts content and
> > >>>improve
> > >>> Apache
> > >>> Mesos doc. The policies/procedures for what's canonical/etc. in those
> > >>>docs
> > >>> can be
> > >>> less formal and more based on social norms; users' actual comments;
> and
> > >>> improvements
> > >>> that make sense to expend resources working on.
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >P.S: Open office's how to contribute to
> > >>> >wiki<
> > >>>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Dashboard/Wiki_Editing_
> > >>> >Policy>
> > >>> >looks
> > >>> >pretty ominous to me :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Hehe, same to me! /me ducks from the Apache Ooo PMC members sneaking
> > >>> around on this list lol
> > >>>
> > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > >>> Senior Computer Scientist
> > >>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > >>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> > >>> Email: [email protected]
> > >>> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> > >>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) <
> > >>> >[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> Hi Dave,
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> From: Dave Lester <[email protected]>
> > >>> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]"
> > >>> >><[email protected]
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> Date: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:26 AM
> > >>> >> To: "[email protected]"
> > >>><[email protected]>
> > >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release process on wiki
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> >On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) <
> > >>> >> >[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >> I would just do both. Let contributions and time
> > >>> >> >> decide; rather than just picking one.
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >I disagree. In this case I see two distinct concerns related to
> > >>> >> >documentation and the wiki: 1) making it clear and simple for how
> > >>>to
> > >>> >> >contribute to the project documentation, and 2) making it easy to
> > >>>use
> > >>> >>the
> > >>> >> >documentation and get started with Mesos.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> And:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> 3) Enabling contribution to documentation (which is different from
> > >>>#1
> > >>> >> [making
> > >>> >> it clear] and from #2 [using the documentation])
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >I personally think the latter concern much more pressing for user
> > >>> >>growth
> > >>> >> >at
> > >>> >> >this time, although I do think both are important to consider. Do
> > >>> >>others
> > >>> >> >think the former is more important?
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> I'm of the mindset having been around the foundation since 2005-,
> > >>>and a
> > >>> >> number
> > >>> >> of projects that each (shipping docs with release; and keeping
> docs
> > >>>in
> > >>> >> wiki) has
> > >>> >> their benefits and use cases. The latter allows documentation to
> > >>>evolve
> > >>> >> much more
> > >>> >> rapidly and also visually (e.g., through editors like Confluence);
> > >>> >>whereas
> > >>> >> the
> > >>> >> former requires someone with commit/PMC bit to shepherd the
> > >>> >>documentation
> > >>> >> into
> > >>> >> the sources [giving them the potential for them to be quite stale
> as
> > >>> >>those
> > >>> >> sources
> > >>> >> become stale].
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> However the above is a straw man.I see advantages to both and have
> > >>>lived
> > >>> >> them
> > >>> >> through in a number of high and low profile open source projects.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > As a developer who is getting starting with Mesos, having
> multiple
> > >>> >> >sources
> > >>> >> >of truth for the project (documentation stored in git, and also
> the
> > >>> >>wiki)
> > >>> >> >could be frustrating.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Note the key word above *could*. We don't have people constantly
> > >>>coming
> > >>> >>to
> > >>> >> the mailing lists complaining about this delineation. And if they
> > >>>did, I
> > >>> >> would
> > >>> >> suggest to them the same (and it really depends on what their role
> > >>>is in
> > >>> >> the
> > >>> >> project -- are they PMC/committer yet? are they simply a user?,
> > >>>etc.)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Take for example Apache Open Office -- a very formal PMC
> > >>>organization
> > >>> >> rightly so
> > >>> >> due to the diversity of types and kinds of contributions -- and
> due
> > >>>to
> > >>> >>the
> > >>> >> fact that their community wants the model that way. Imagine the
> > >>> >>rate/types
> > >>> >> of
> > >>> >> documentation contribution and from all over the world with
> > >>> >> internationalization
> > >>> >> etc that they receive. Keeping docs in sources would be quite
> > >>>difficult
> > >>> >>if
> > >>> >> updating those docs required the contributors to be PMC or
> committer
> > >>>-
> > >>> >> especially
> > >>> >> in the case that they receive non technical documentation and
> > >>> >> contributions from
> > >>> >> people that will never touch SVN or Git, like ever. But they write
> > >>> >> documentation in
> > >>> >> e.g., some editor or wiki, and then contribute it separate of the
> > >>> >>release
> > >>> >> cycle of
> > >>> >> the system.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> On the opposite extreme end, in a project with very small sources;
> > >>>high
> > >>> >> rate of
> > >>> >> commit; tons of inclusivity; I can see saying look we want docs
> only
> > >>>in
> > >>> >> sources,
> > >>> >> we don't need a wiki being a decent choice. Until the first user
> > >>>that
> > >>> >> cares nothing
> > >>> >> about the sources, but only the binary, and that writes a great
> > >>>tutorial
> > >>> >> on the
> > >>> >> software and wants to share it comes along. Then what's the use
> > >>>case?
> > >>> >>That
> > >>> >> tutorial
> > >>> >> has to be shepherded or brought into the sources by a committer or
> > >>>PMC
> > >>> >> member, creating
> > >>> >> more work. When instead, that user could have gone to a wiki,
> turned
> > >>>the
> > >>> >> editor on,
> > >>> >> dumped their doc into it, clicked save, and been done. It's in our
> > >>> >> advantage to have
> > >>> >> the docs here on ASF hardware and the bits here, in whatever form
> > >>>they
> > >>> >> manifest (wiki;
> > >>> >> *.md files in Git, etc.)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Mesos isn't on either end of these opposites, and is more
> in-between
> > >>> >>like
> > >>> >> most
> > >>> >> projects are. For that reason along with numerous others I've
> > >>>suggested,
> > >>> >> it probably
> > >>> >> makes sense to support both.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Beyond this, it's also not a question of "shutting down"
> > >>>documentation
> > >>> >>on
> > >>> >> the wiki.
> > >>> >> That's not something really that should be dictated, nor is it
> very
> > >>> >> community friendly.
> > >>> >> I'm involved with the project, if for nothing else than teaching
> the
> > >>> >> Apache way, vote'ing
> > >>> >> on releases and mentoring. I enjoy the wiki, a lot more than I do
> > >>> >>checking
> > >>> >> out a source
> > >>> >> tree, running a few git commands and then update/pushing it and
> > >>>waiting
> > >>> >> for it to appear
> > >>> >> on some site. For that reason that there is at least 1 person on
> the
> > >>> >> project that likes
> > >>> >> a wiki, I'd ask, VOTE'ing to declare one versus the other defunct
> or
> > >>>not
> > >>> >> isn't very
> > >>> >> friendly to me or anyone else that likes the wiki. I'd ask: what
> > >>>happens
> > >>> >> if everyone
> > >>> >> +1s the Git docs, and -1s me? What should I do then? Stop putting
> > >>>stuff
> > >>> >>on
> > >>> >> the wiki?
> > >>> >> What if it discourages me from contributing docs? Is that good for
> > >>> >>Mesos?
> > >>> >> Or the community?
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> >There's no search between the docs and wiki, and I'm
> > >>> >> >not clear if there is a distinction between where I would go to
> > >>>answer
> > >>> >> >specific questions. When contributing documentation, I'm also not
> > >>>sure
> > >>> >> >which source I would contribute to.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Hypothetical, let's support this with real use cases and data and
> > >>> >>address
> > >>> >> this issue should it arise when we have dozens of people beating
> our
> > >>> >>door
> > >>> >> down for searching across the wiki and docs -- furthermore, I'd
> > >>>actually
> > >>> >> suggest that in fact you can search across both, with Google.
> Google
> > >>> >> indexes
> > >>> >> Apache's Confluence deployment; as do they index our Git and SVN
> > >>>repos
> > >>> >>and
> > >>> >> the content inside. So, you can actually search across both. B/c
> > >>>Google
> > >>> >>is
> > >>> >> a
> > >>> >> horizontal search engine and not vertical, it's harder, but it can
> > >>>be
> > >>> >>done.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >I'm in favor of using just one source. If making it easy to use
> the
> > >>> >> >documentation is the priority then I think rendering markdown
> files
> > >>>is
> > >>> >>a
> > >>> >> >fine approach for now.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> My honest suggestion: put your time and effort into improving what
> > >>>you'd
> > >>> >> like
> > >>> >> (the source docs), and let me and anyone else that wants to put
> > >>>stuff on
> > >>> >> the
> > >>> >> wiki do our thing too. Then, beyond that, let's add a link on
> both:
> > >>>(1)
> > >>> >> from
> > >>> >> the wiki to git: Apache src docs; and from src docs to the wiki.
> > >>>Done.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Cheers,
> > >>> >> Chris
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > >>> >> Senior Computer Scientist
> > >>> >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > >>> >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> > >>> >> Email: [email protected]
> > >>> >> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > >>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> > >>> >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > >>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to