On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a question about your proposed cookie cutter. How much of what is > currently on OOOUSER is therefore not appropriate there, under your criteria? > OOOUSER is a public, user-editable Wiki is it not? The only requirement is > for a Wiki Account to be established. >
I'm assuming that we want move entirely to a single wiki infrastructure, all MediaWiki. In that case, OOOUSER would be sunsetted and anything needing preservation would be migrated over (probably manually). Whether we manage "core" doc pages, etc., via segregation in different wiki spaces, subsites, or even on a page-by-page basis remains to be determined. IMHO, we should get away from the mistaken notion that there is a "project wiki" and a "community wiki". It is all community. And we're all part of that community. We should be talking about the content and what portions of it need to be authoritative, compatible licensed and subject to PPMC approval. This is similar to how we handle code. Anyone can submit a patch. It can be of poor quality or with an incompatible license attached. In that case we ignore it, or give feedback to the developer, but it doesn't make it into SVN or into a release. We treat the project website in the same way. Anyone can contribute, but there is RTC for non-committer contributions and CRT for committers. I think for the wiki we want something similar, at least for core areas that the PPMC decides to exercise oversight over. We can debate what areas these are, but I assume areas like core documentation are included. There may be other areas where we decide there will be no PPMC oversight on content, beyond enforcing the site terms, including the use of the Apache 2.0 license. > Secondly, just in case it is not clear, there is a particular requirement (at > Apache) for the careful and respectful treatment of third-party contributed > material. Think of it as third-party Category A software that is being > relied upon in a distribution (for the principle, not whether we are actually > doing that). This influences how derivative works are made. In particular, > any requirements in terms of notices and especially copyright notices need to > be satisfied. For Apache, I assume this principle applies to all works that > an ALv2 can cover, not just software code. > Right. > Finally, leaving that material at an http://*.openoffice.org address where > the contribution appears retains such material "as-contributed." Moving it > to an apache.org site, especially with additional conditions and > restrictions, is not something for which we might wish to claim permission > for doing. > You are making the distinction between re-hosting (different server with same URL) versus moving content (different URL). This is an important distinction. It is important because historical lax attention to IP on the wiki has resulted in content where it is unclear what license applies to it. > I recently saw this with regard to the civility and ethical position of > Apache on such matters > < > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201107.mbox/%[email protected]%3e>: > > "At Apache, all contributions are voluntary. We do not accept code > from copyright owners who don't want us to have it, even if we have > the legal right to adopt it for other reasons." > > The thread there expands on this with regard to a particular situation, one I > trust we do not encounter [;<). > > We can only assume those contributors wanted OpenOffice.org to have it. We > (when it is not the Oracle licensed-to-Apache material we are talking about) > need to be respectful of how Apache stewardship continues to satisfy their > desires in the matter. > For some definition of "OpenOffice.org", yes ;-) This is one reason why I want to have this cleared up for all future contributions. We can't change the past. Things that are ambiguous remain ambiguous, unless we can track down and discuss with each contributor. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 07:49 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Access to wiki > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Eike Rathke <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> On Saturday, 2011-08-06 21:05:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> It is much more than just 2 categories, official or unofficial doc. >>> Looking around I see things like: >>> >>> a) Official doc (current) >>> b) Official doc (obsolete) >>> c) Doc in progress (active) >>> d) Doc in progress (abandoned) >>> e) Project planning docs >>> f) Pages related directly to the development of the product, e.g., >>> build instructions, architecture notes, coding standards, etc. >>> g) Marketing and event related pages >>> h) Pages related to the governance of the project, e.g., minutes from >>> engineering steering committee meetings, etc. >>> i) Biography/home pages for project volunteers >>> j) And probably many other categories >> > > I just noticed this page, listing the page categories in the wiki. > This is another way of looking at the range of content: > > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACategoryTree&target=MainIndex&mode=categories&dotree=Show+tree > > >> Given this list I see the following categories: >> >> A) Apache OOo committers only, with comments/discussion enabled for >> everyone with a wiki account. >> B) Contributed 3rd party material, unsure which edit rights those should >> be assigned. >> C) Community wiki editable for everyone with a wiki account under AL2 or >> a permissive license. > > > I'm not sure I see the difference between B and C? When a 3rd party > edits the wiki then they are contributing 3rd party material. > >> D) Museum, read-only pages that can be revived and moved to one of the >> other categories. >> E) Dump. Pages that were contributed under licenses that are not >> permissive in an Apache project. >> >> Material of categories: >> >> A: a, e, f, h >> B: TBD, e.g. the ODFAuthors documentation >> C: c, g, i, j >> D: b, d >> E: TBD >> >> >>> 1) Migrate the wiki off of Oracle and on to Apache machines. But >>> pending further consensus, keep it read-only except to committers. >>> >>> 2) At the same time, make the Oracle-hosted version be read-only. >>> >>> 3) Figure out the minimal number of changes necessary for the PPMC to >>> have consensus that Oracle can shut down their server and switch the >>> domain to point to the Apache version. This might include things like >>> branding, license, policies, appointment/confirmation of >>> admins/moderators, etc. >>> >>> 4) Prepare notification to community about the new website. >>> >>> 5) Go live, along with notification to community >> >> Sounds like a plan. Though for 1) consensus should be reached quickly to >> not put contributors off. >> > > Agreed. Right now there is almost no wiki edits. But we'll need the > have the wiki ready in time for the expected increase in activity > around the first AOOo release. So that suggests we have a few months. > >> Eike >> >> -- >> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. >> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD >> > >
