On Aug 25, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Hi--
>
> I think I deleted lot of conversations in this thread and that is it a bit
> old, but see below...
>
> On 08/12/2011 10:25 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on
>>>
>>> " I think the value of opening up that list to a broader range of
>>> contributors is worth the cost of the extra click."
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> In my experience editing a wiki and creating a patch are
>>> qualitatively and quantitatively different.
>>>
>>> Editing a wiki, especially one that is inviting (Media Wiki
>>> qualifies for me, others not so much), provides for discussion and
>>> has an important internet feature: disintermediation.
>>>
>>> The appeal of wikis (and forums too) is that it provides
>>> disintermediation on behalf of non-expert participation. And it
>>> has immediacy, something we must not undervalue. You don't get
>>> Wikipedia by a procedure that involves submitting patches. Not
>>> ever.
>>>
>>> I think every approach we assess here should be tested by how it
>>> invites greater participation. That does not mean we grant
>>> committer status to every bloke who knocks on the door, because
>>> that is about the provenance of the code base and the integrity of
>>> releases.
>>>
>>> There are amazing activities that benefit from end-user support,
>>> peer support, and developers contributing in visible ways that are
>>> not significant in terms of Apache licensing and issues around
>>> releases. But developers can provide perspective and transparency
>>> using the community playground too.
>>>
>>> So, for example, the main web site for the project needs to be
>>> non-user-edited for technical as well as policy reasons. Then one
>>> question would be how little can we have there in order to gain the
>>> contributions of non-developers/-committers in all of those places
>>> where they can shine -- and perhaps be(come) experts of another
>>> kind through those contributions.
>>>
>>> The proper question, for me, is not how much to have under
>>> committer control and PPMC-intermediation, but how little we can
>>> have without increased ceremony and technical barriers because of
>>> an over-riding consideration. Very little should trump open,
>>> casual participation.
>>
>> ++++1.
>>
>> On the wiki, a user may or may not have editing rights, but other
>> than that the wiki is designed to allow change.
>>
>> The whole html vs mdtext question that Kay has been raising is all
>> about how to work on the website in a most casual manner with the
>> least amount of "ceremony". One of the key advantages of the Apache
>> CMS is making it easy for Committers to modify content on the fly
>> also makes contribution comparatively more difficult for
>> non-committers. For non-commiters this means installing a whole
>> document build system.
>>
>> One approach could be to modify the Apache CMS web-gui to allow
>> non-committers to browse and make patches. I don't know how hard that
>> would be to do.
>>
>> A search box on the main site can point to google and can search both
>> the main site and the wiki.
>>
>> When we are ready to consider each OOo project site for conversion we
>> should send an email to ooo-dev to determine which way that site
>> should go - CMS or Wiki? We can label the thread with
>> "[www][${project}]". We can also ask for someone to step up and lead
>> the content conversion process for a project.
>
> hmmm...well generally I think this is a very good idea. Should we get
> together a list of the project heads and start this process now?
>
> I might also suggest that by some consensus we put together a lost of areas
> that we absolutely, positively DON'T want on the wiki for control reasons. I
> will happily work on a wiki page with these ideas.
Will you be editing
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-to-ASF-site-recommendation
, or starting a new page?
Regards,
Dave
>
>>
>> Regards, Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: N�ir�n Plunkett
>>> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 07:20 To:
>>> [email protected] Subject: Re: Making mailing lists
>>> useful (was Re: [Proposal])
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Rob Weir<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm assuming that it is the new list subscriber that benefits
>>>> most from this. Existing subscribers will just follow the
>>>> conventions they observe being used on the list. Or do you
>>>> expect to regularly check the wiki to see what new subject tags
>>>> Simon has added?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's highly unlikely that the new list subscriber will
>>> read this in either location; I think the people who are most
>>> likely to read it are those who've been on the list a few days, see
>>> that there are a few tags floating around, and that the volume of
>>> mail is hectic. (Yes, I know the static page says c. 57/day. I also
>>> know that most people have no concept of what that means as an
>>> addition to their normal mail flow.)
>>>
>>> I expect those people not to be sure what to look for or where, but
>>> I hope if they've seen a reasonably prominent mention on the static
>>> page saying "This is a high-volume mailing list. Please use clear,
>>> relevant subject lines, and consider using an appropriate tag for
>>> your mail. A list of tags is available at [link].", that they'll
>>> figure it out.
>>>
>>> I think the value of opening up that list to a broader range of
>>> contributors is worth the cost of the extra click.
>>>
>>> Noirin
>>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Music expresses that which cannot be said and
> on which it is impossible to be silent."
> -- Victor Hugo
