On 8/7/2011 08:39, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Rob Weir<[email protected]> wrote:
Maybe I'm too skeptical, but do we really have thousands of non core
project members dropping in for minutes at a time, adding information
on the architecture of OOo? And build instructions? Looking at the
history of these pages, it looks more like this is core dev-enabling
information that should be part of the core project website
"Thousands" is hyperbole. The wiki has been a meta-community resource
throughout the history of the project, and shutting it down so the only way
to use it is to sign up to Apache is the wrong move. I see a whole lot of
YAGNI thinking going on here. How about adopting the principle of being as
permissive as possible until there's a problem that needs solving?
S.
+1
We seem to be searching for excuses to impose high-entry-barrier
("high-bar") solutions on the wiki. This, for a wiki, is rather like
spanking the baby with an ax: it /works/, but ...
If we break the problems up a bit, some low-bar solutions become inviting.
IP-NEW
The most urgent problem is to control any new contributions to the wiki,
in a way that is acceptable to our TLA partners. Fortunately, there is a
general way, already vetted by thousands of corporate lawyers, and
familiar to everyone who's ever downloaded any software (including
ours!): call it the "EULA page". On account creation (or reactivation)
the user either accepts the license, or the account remains read-only.
We can reinforce this with messages on the edit page, footer messages,
&c, until all authorities are satisfied.
IP-OLD
I think we have consensus that this will take time and effort; it is not
amenable to a sweeping solution. Fortunately, we have the time, and
probably the effort; while important, this problem is not urgent. We
have particular and drastic solutions (block, delete) for any particular
problem that may become urgent.
INTEGRITY
This deserves a long discussion in a separate thread. The OO.o low-bar
solutions worked poorly for IP, but reasonably well (IMHO) for
integrity. The general C-T-R method on the wiki is compatible with the
Apache Way, and lives or dies by the effectiveness of the "review" part.
We can do this.
--
/tj/
