Sorry, I meant discussion at the wiki itself.  It is weird to discuss a wiki 
from a list, yes?  Especially a community wiki.  Any preferences about that?  I 
want to splice in more information and detail, but not trample on anything or 
just be off in a crevasse somewhere.

Also, what is your preference for introduction of discussion items in the wiki 
pages.  We don't have a discussion tab, so something else is needed.  Thoughts?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 14:41
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [discuss][www][wiki] Native-lang sites was Web, WIki, and 
Participation

Dennis--

Hi...I'm just getting to this now.


On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> 
wrote:


        Thanks Dave, those are useful inventory items to ensure coverage and 
disposition of some sort.
        
        What are your thoughts along the lines of my question to Kay concerning 
how updates and discussions on these would be handled cleanly?
        
        In fact, what is the desired action with regard to the items on those 
pages? Anything specific?
        


The recommendations regarding the web sites were mine alone.  I guess my 
feeling was since pretty much ALL development is being handled by one list here 
currently, it makes sense to me to combine areas that I think are code 
development related and hence the recommendations I made. This being said, I 
think at the very least, the current project heads involved in the various 
"development" areas like api, appliation framework, database -- really anything 
designated as "core" (thanks to Marcus for this) -- should be contacted to see 
what they think, or rather how they might to combine what's on these sites. 
Right now, if you go to the current OOo wiki, 

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page

you'll see the development "teams" listed.

There may be some legacy info some of these folks want to keep from the web 
sites, but I couldn't really speak to that.

Maybe the best way would be just to just start a thread with the subject heading

[DISCUSS] Simplifying the new Apache OOo web site  according to "category" 
function

or something like that, pointing folks to

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-to-ASF-site-recommendation

and see what anyone has to say.




        
         - Dennis
        



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[email protected]]
        Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 19:16
        To: [email protected]
        
        Subject: Re: [discuss][www][wiki] Native-lang sites was Web, WIki, and 
Participation
        
        Dennis,
        
        Kay's page is not the only one that discusses the subdomains/projects 
of openoffice.org. These are variations.
        https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
        https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice+Domains
        
        Here are the "synonym" domains to openoffice.org. There are some 
decisions to be made about what should be kept.
        
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Roster+of+OpenOffice+Domains
        
        Feel free to either edit or comment on any of these wiki pages, many 
have already.
        
        I think we are getting closer to be able to propose a coherent 
migration plan.
        
        Regards,
        Dave
        
        On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
        
        > Kay,
        >
        > I'd like to start taking some of the material that is beautifully 
captured on your OOo-to-ASF-site-recommendation page down to the next level of 
detail.  I think linking to additional pages is the way to do it, with those 
pages focused on details at the next level for a very specific topic, such as 
the Bugzilla migration.
        >
        > 1. I was thinking the hot links would be added into the "Migration 
Recommendations" cells.  Does that fit with your thinking?
        >
        > 2. Also, I don't know a good way to tie in discussion on the 
OOo-to-ASF... page.  There is nothing like a Discuss tab.  Do you have a 
preference?
        >
        > 3. Finally, I see your primary restructuring separation.  I agree to 
that in principle.  There are clearly cross-over points where the user side 
provides a gateway to the developer side, as it were.  My question: I don't 
know how your categories map to that restructuring.  Are they meant to, or not?
        >
        > Thanks for the attention to coverage and detail, it is a big help.
        >
        > - Dennis
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]]
        > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 14:24
        > To: OOo Apache
        > Subject: [discuss][www][wiki] Native-lang sites was Web, WIki, and 
Participation
        >
        > Continuing our discussion from Thurs, if you now go to
        >
        > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Site-PPMC-Plan
        >
        > and navigate through this "portal", specifically the survey of 
existing
        > OOo services, I tried to reorganize some things, and include the web
        > pages in this overview.
        >
        > and, did address some of the "old" questions (topics) in
        >
        > 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-to-ASF-site-recommendation
        >
        > So, maybe that will help.
        >
        > [ ... ]
        >
        
        




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Music expresses that which cannot be said and 
 on which it is impossible to be silent."
                                                   -- Victor Hugo




Reply via email to