Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On Friday 25 January 2013, Daniel Gruno wrote: [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... +1
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 25.01.2013 14:21, Daniel Gruno wrote: Vote [XX] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... +1 Thanks! Rainer
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
[ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... +1
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
+1 Roy
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 01/25/2013 02:21 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Vote [ X ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT. Standard majority consensus applies, as it has with all other web site changes. With regards, Daniel. Adding my own +1.
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: Proposal 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org 2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and modules-archive.apache.org linking to each other. 3) Replace modules.apache.org with the new modules site, currently available at http://modules.humbedooh.com and also available in svn for review. 4) Start afresh with a new, empty database on modules.apache.org and have modules-archive.apache.org retain the old database. 5) Contact all authors who have created or modified a module on the site within the last 2 years (this is 59 authors), and inform them of the new site, encouraging them to resubmit their modules. 6) Allow modules.apache.org to fetch DOAP files for projects, placed anywhere on the Internet, thus acting as an aggregator of publicly available information. Vote [X] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Daniel Gruno wrote: So, this is when we get to vote on things! I am satisfied that the new site is working as intended, and that new requests for features can be integrated and reviewed, as the site is publicly available in svn (in the infrastructure repository). Now, the vote deals with a lot of things, so I'd like you to read the proposal carefully. Proposal 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org 2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and modules-archive.apache.org linking to each other. 3) Replace modules.apache.org with the new modules site, currently available at http://modules.humbedooh.com and also available in svn for review. 4) Start afresh with a new, empty database on modules.apache.org and have modules-archive.apache.org retain the old database. 5) Contact all authors who have created or modified a module on the site within the last 2 years (this is 59 authors), and inform them of the new site, encouraging them to resubmit their modules. 6) Allow modules.apache.org to fetch DOAP files for projects, placed anywhere on the Internet, thus acting as an aggregator of publicly available information. Vote [ X ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT. Standard majority consensus applies, as it has with all other web site changes. With regards, Daniel. Regards Rüdiger
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: Proposal 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org And made read-only, right? 2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and modules-archive.apache.org linking to each other. 3) Replace modules.apache.org with the new modules site, currently available at http://modules.humbedooh.com and also available in svn for review. 4) Start afresh with a new, empty database on modules.apache.org and have modules-archive.apache.org retain the old database. 5) Contact all authors who have created or modified a module on the site within the last 2 years (this is 59 authors), and inform them of the new site, encouraging them to resubmit their modules. 6) Allow modules.apache.org to fetch DOAP files for projects, placed anywhere on the Internet, thus acting as an aggregator of publicly available information. Vote [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... +1
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 01/25/2013 04:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: Proposal 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org And made read-only, right? Yes, it will be a read only archive - no sense in fooling authors into posting on the old site as well as the new one (also, the approval process there makes me nauseous). With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Am 25.01.2013 14:21, schrieb Daniel Gruno: Vote [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... +1 Gün.
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Vote [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT. Standard majority consensus applies, as it has with all other web site changes. With regards, Daniel. +1
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 1/25/2013 5:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Vote [X] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
+1 On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen rbo...@apache.org
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because.. +1. Regards, Graham --
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote: [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... -1 as stated. +1 in principle. IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new DNS entry for modules-archive, it should live under a single hostname: maybe modules.apache.org/archive/ I can't access modules.humbedooh.com right now, but I'll take what's there as of secondary importance: it's presumably intended more as startingpoint than final product. -- Nick Kew
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Nick Kew n...@webthing.com wrote: -1 as stated. +1 in principle. IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new DNS entry for modules-archive, it should live under a single hostname: maybe modules.apache.org/archive/ Is this practical, or will all the links break? Regards, Graham --
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 01/25/2013 11:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote: [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... -1 as stated. +1 in principle. IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new DNS entry for modules-archive, it should live under a single hostname: maybe modules.apache.org/archive/ I can't access modules.humbedooh.com right now, but I'll take what's there as of secondary importance: it's presumably intended more as startingpoint than final product. If people do not object to this, I believe we can accommodate your wish to put it under /archive instead without having to resort to a new vote. Anyone who's opposed to Nick's suggestion, please state so, or I will assume that we can continue the voting with this addendum. Apologies for the test site not being available at the time, it has been fixed now. And yes, it's a starting point. The whole point of this vote is to get _started_ on moving away from something that is utterly dysfunctional, and towards something that works and is simpler to manage. Once the voting is done, assuming no one starts throwing vetoes about, I will start a new thread, calling for ideas and suggestions on how to improve the new site, and as I've stated earlier, I am looking for anyone who would like to contribute to maintaining and improving the site. As it stands, we have Rich, Gavin, Jan from Infrastructure (I hope/think) and myself doing moderation and reviewing the processes, but we'd like more to join. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:13, Graham Leggett wrote: Is this practical, or will all the links break? Fair question. I guess the answer is try-it-and-see. Is the site populated with dynamically-generated links relative to its own root / ? Static links should be trivial to run through a one-off search-and-replace. If it turns out to lead to brokenness that can't easily be fixed then I'll withdraw my objection to a DNS solution. -- Nick Kew
RE: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
-Original Message- From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk] Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 11:52 PM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org So, this is when we get to vote on things! I am satisfied that the new site is working as intended, and that new requests for features can be integrated and reviewed, as the site is publicly available in svn (in the infrastructure repository). Now, the vote deals with a lot of things, so I'd like you to read the proposal carefully. Proposal 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org 2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and modules- archive.apache.org linking to each other. 3) Replace modules.apache.org with the new modules site, currently available at http://modules.humbedooh.com and also available in svn for review. 4) Start afresh with a new, empty database on modules.apache.org and have modules-archive.apache.org retain the old database. 5) Contact all authors who have created or modified a module on the site within the last 2 years (this is 59 authors), and inform them of the new site, encouraging them to resubmit their modules. 6) Allow modules.apache.org to fetch DOAP files for projects, placed anywhere on the Internet, thus acting as an aggregator of publicly available information. Vote [X] +1: I support this proposal (non-binding) Gav... [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT. Standard majority consensus applies, as it has with all other web site changes. With regards, Daniel.
RE: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
-Original Message- From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk] Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 8:54 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org On 01/25/2013 11:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote: [ ] +1: I support this proposal [ ] 0: I don't care [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... -1 as stated. +1 in principle. IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new DNS entry for modules-archive, it should live under a single hostname: maybe modules.apache.org/archive/ I can't access modules.humbedooh.com right now, but I'll take what's there as of secondary importance: it's presumably intended more as startingpoint than final product. If people do not object to this, I believe we can accommodate your wish to put it under /archive instead without having to resort to a new vote. Anyone who's opposed to Nick's suggestion, please state so, or I will assume that we can continue the voting with this addendum. I don't mind either way, each has benefits/drawbacks. Each is easy to implement. Gav... Apologies for the test site not being available at the time, it has been fixed now. And yes, it's a starting point. The whole point of this vote is to get _started_ on moving away from something that is utterly dysfunctional, and towards something that works and is simpler to manage. Once the voting is done, assuming no one starts throwing vetoes about, I will start a new thread, calling for ideas and suggestions on how to improve the new site, and as I've stated earlier, I am looking for anyone who would like to contribute to maintaining and improving the site. As it stands, we have Rich, Gavin, Jan from Infrastructure (I hope/think) and myself doing moderation and reviewing the processes, but we'd like more to join. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On Jan 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote: [ ] +1: I support this proposal +1 ...and whatever you want to do with the old site is fine by me. What level of traffic are we seeing on it? Shouldn't we just make a clean break and respond to any URL into the old database with a 410 Gone to encourage the search engines to clean themselves up? S. -- scte...@apache.orghttp://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A View my availability: http://tungle.me/sctemme
