Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Frank Warmerdam]

Barry,

I have updated the DNS entry for 2013.foss4g.org to point to our WebExtra
VM, checked out the site there, and setup the apache config to serve it.
Once the DNS propogates you should be able to find the site there.

Not too surprisingly the search box doesn't work.  Is there much other
"active content" depending on special server side support?  Once the DNS
change propogates, i'd appreciate it if you could confirm you can get to
everything correctly hopefully including the map gallery.

Feel free to contact me outside the discuss list with regard to details.

Best regards,
Frank



On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Barry Rowlingson <
b.rowling...@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Alex Mandel 
> wrote:
>
> > The size in general is not an issue. You're right that sticking that
> > much in svn is usually a pain, but not if it's one time deal. This is a
> > good question for the System Admin Committee to ponder though. I think
> > most people would want a static clone of the site in some way to
> > continue to exist, and we do have servers we can put that on.
> >
> > So under this plan you would put it in svn, and we would checkout the
> > subfolder to a web server and serve up the static copy.
> >
>
>  That's great, because I think the ..s that SVN is
> printing out right now are nearly finished...
>
>  I didn't realise there already was an SVN for the conference, or even
> that I had write access to it.
>
> Once SVN stops spitting dots at me you should see it here:
>
> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/website/
>
> and apart from not displaying index.html files on directories I reckon
> it should be almost usable from that URL. Of course it will be happier
> when stuck on an apache box with its domain name
>
> thanks
>
> Barry
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
---+--
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
warmer...@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Software Developer
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Markus Neteler]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Barry Rowlingson
 wrote:
...
> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/website/
>
> and apart from not displaying index.html files on directories I reckon
> it should be almost usable from that URL. Of course it will be happier
> when stuck on an apache box with its domain name

Please consider to apply svn propset
(helper script:
https://svn.osgeo.org/grass/grass-addons/tools/module_svn_propset.sh
)

on the files if not done yet.

thanks
Markus
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Barry Rowlingson]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Anne Ghisla  wrote:

> Same from me. If you find a valuable tool and wish to have an OSGeo
> instance of it, let Board/SAC know.

 I've not seen anything OpenSource that looks as good for team work as
the glossy advertising promise of OpenAtrium:

http://openatrium.com/#!/#Features

 I really want to try out an install of this at work for some
projects, especially since our IT services seem to be sidelining
SharePoint (wooohooo!)

Barry
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Anne Ghisla]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:20:01 -0800
Darrell Fuhriman  wrote:

> The Cookbook,  Lessons Learned, and the recent 2013 summary have
> been  the most valuable for us.
> 
> The archive may have some value as a historical artifact, but that
> kind of higher level stuff is far more valuable. The day to day
> discussion threads simply do not matter.

I agree, the summaries are more readable and easy to navigate than the
raw logs of all discussions. Of course, as soon as they will be
available, they can be consulted if more detail is needed, so I am in
favour of keeping them archived in a convenient format. Thanks Steven
and LOC for working on that.

> And I'm with Steven, wikis suck as a project management tool. At best
> they're good as somewhat organized record of what was done (e.g.
> meeting notes). For actually getting work done, there are far better
> tools out there.

Same from me. If you find a valuable tool and wish to have an OSGeo
instance of it, let Board/SAC know.

> Darrell

Best,
Anne

> On Dec 5, 2013, at 03:04, Steven Feldman  wrote:
> 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > You have raised the topic of our use of basecamp several times. I
> > believe the LOC has the right and the need to choose the internal
> > comms tool that works best for it. We chose basecamp and it worked
> > well for us, much much better than dysfunctional mailing lists or a
> > wiki. Those who follow on can make their own choices.
> > 
> > Re the archiving of logo file, discussions etc. We have committed
> > to doing this and will deliver in a way that may be useful to
> > others although I doubt that Portland or anyone following will ever
> > look at this stuff, I know we never looked in the SVN at previous
> > years' archives
> 



-- 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Aghisla


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Darrell Fuhriman]

The Cookbook,  Lessons Learned, and the recent 2013 summary have been  the most 
valuable for us.

The archive may have some value as a historical artifact, but that kind of 
higher level stuff is far more valuable. The day to day discussion threads 
simply do not matter.

And I'm with Steven, wikis suck as a project management tool. At best they're 
good as somewhat organized record of what was done (e.g. meeting notes). For 
actually getting work done, there are far better tools out there.

Darrell


On Dec 5, 2013, at 03:04, Steven Feldman  wrote:

> Jeff
> 
> You have raised the topic of our use of basecamp several times. I believe the 
> LOC has the right and the need to choose the internal comms tool that works 
> best for it. We chose basecamp and it worked well for us, much much better 
> than dysfunctional mailing lists or a wiki. Those who follow on can make 
> their own choices.
> 
> Re the archiving of logo file, discussions etc. We have committed to doing 
> this and will deliver in a way that may be useful to others although I doubt 
> that Portland or anyone following will ever look at this stuff, I know we 
> never looked in the SVN at previous years' archives



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Steven Feldman]

Jeff

You have raised the topic of our use of basecamp several times. I believe the 
LOC has the right and the need to choose the internal comms tool that works 
best for it. We chose basecamp and it worked well for us, much much better than 
dysfunctional mailing lists or a wiki. Those who follow on can make their own 
choices.

Re the archiving of logo file, discussions etc. We have committed to doing this 
and will deliver in a way that may be useful to others although I doubt that 
Portland or anyone following will ever look at this stuff, I know we never 
looked in the SVN at previous years' archives
__
Steven

> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeff McKenna 
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving
> Date: 4 December 2013 15:57:01 GMT
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> As for the  Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
> be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
> upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
> OSGeo wiki pages.  Of course this is much easier to do from the
> beginning of the event planning.  We can add this to the 2013 lessons
> learned page for sure.
> 
> Thanks for taking this time to share your files.  They are super
> important for future FOSS4G local committees.
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-12-04 10:39 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>> The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
>> 
>> 1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
>> mapgallery images: 74Mb
>> 
>> 2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
>> 
>> 3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
>> 
>> 4. Google Docs: ???Mb
>> 
>> I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
>> map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
>> touch about 3 and 4.
>> 
>> Could someone on the exec kickstart the process whereby I can put
>> these things, if OSGeo still want them, onto storage somewhere.
>> 
>> I don't know if OSGeo would rather put them on a filesystem or have
>> everything in SVN, in which case a new SVN repo for 1 and 2 would
>> probably be the thing, then I'd push everything to it.
>> 
>> If we don't get this done by end-of-year then I doubt it will get done
>> afterwards.
>> 
>> Barry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jo Cook 
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving
> Date: 4 December 2013 16:13:58 GMT
> To: Jeff McKenna 
> Cc: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> I disagree completely about the basecamp archive. The whole purpose of what 
> I'm doing at the moment is to archive it in a useful format, with discussion 
> threads linking to files rather than a bunch of wiki pages. I appreciate that 
> preserving things on the wiki is a good idea, and that's what we have been 
> doing, but it might be worth holding off from dismissing the basecamp archive 
> as useless until the archiving has been done. You will of course get the 
> logos and other files separately (see Barry's original post, which no one has 
> answered yet).
> 
> I also don't think that the lessons learnt page for 2013 is the right place 
> to add personal opinions from the board about the archive- if you want to 
> forbid the use of any communication tool for OSGeo conferences, apart from 
> the mailing lists and wiki, then this should be specified in the RFP.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jeff McKenna  
> wrote:
> As for the  Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
> be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
> upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
> OSGeo wiki pages.  Of course this is much easier to do from the
> beginning of the event planning.  We can add this to the 2013 lessons
> learned page for sure.
> 
> Thanks for taking this time to share your files.  They are super
> important for future FOSS4G local committees.
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-12-04 10:39 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> > The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
> >
> >  1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
> > mapgallery images: 74Mb
> >
> >  2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
> >
> >  3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
> >
> >  4. Google Docs: ???Mb
> >
> > I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
> > map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
> > touch about 3 and 4.
> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Barry Rowlingson]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Alex Mandel  wrote:

> The size in general is not an issue. You're right that sticking that
> much in svn is usually a pain, but not if it's one time deal. This is a
> good question for the System Admin Committee to ponder though. I think
> most people would want a static clone of the site in some way to
> continue to exist, and we do have servers we can put that on.
>
> So under this plan you would put it in svn, and we would checkout the
> subfolder to a web server and serve up the static copy.
>

 That's great, because I think the ..s that SVN is
printing out right now are nearly finished...

 I didn't realise there already was an SVN for the conference, or even
that I had write access to it.

Once SVN stops spitting dots at me you should see it here:

http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/website/

and apart from not displaying index.html files on directories I reckon
it should be almost usable from that URL. Of course it will be happier
when stuck on an apache box with its domain name

thanks

Barry
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Alex Mandel]

On 12/04/2013 08:00 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jo Cook  wrote:
>> There's already a repository for 2013 at
>> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
>> documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
>> currently wgetting the basecamp project that we were using, so I can verify
>> that we will also be archiving that- however until it finishes I don't know
>> how much disk space it's going to take up.
> 
>  Okay, so as long as OSGeo isn't bothered with over 300Mb of map
> gallery binaries (which shouldn't change) being upped there I'll get
> on with it.
> 
> Barry

The size in general is not an issue. You're right that sticking that
much in svn is usually a pain, but not if it's one time deal. This is a
good question for the System Admin Committee to ponder though. I think
most people would want a static clone of the site in some way to
continue to exist, and we do have servers we can put that on.

So under this plan you would put it in svn, and we would checkout the
subfolder to a web server and serve up the static copy.

Let's see if anyone else has a better idea this week.

Thanks,
Alex
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Jo Cook]

I disagree completely about the basecamp archive. The whole purpose of what
I'm doing at the moment is to archive it in a useful format, with
discussion threads linking to files rather than a bunch of wiki pages. I
appreciate that preserving things on the wiki is a good idea, and that's
what we have been doing, but it might be worth holding off from dismissing
the basecamp archive as useless until the archiving has been done. You will
of course get the logos and other files separately (see Barry's original
post, which no one has answered yet).

I also don't think that the lessons learnt page for 2013 is the right place
to add personal opinions from the board about the archive- if you want to
forbid the use of any communication tool for OSGeo conferences, apart from
the mailing lists and wiki, then this should be specified in the RFP.

Jo


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jeff McKenna
wrote:

> As for the  Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
> be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
> upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
> OSGeo wiki pages.  Of course this is much easier to do from the
> beginning of the event planning.  We can add this to the 2013 lessons
> learned page for sure.
>
> Thanks for taking this time to share your files.  They are super
> important for future FOSS4G local committees.
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
> On 2013-12-04 10:39 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> > The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
> >
> >  1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
> > mapgallery images: 74Mb
> >
> >  2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
> >
> >  3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
> >
> >  4. Google Docs: ???Mb
> >
> > I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
> > map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
> > touch about 3 and 4.
> >
> > Could someone on the exec kickstart the process whereby I can put
> > these things, if OSGeo still want them, onto storage somewhere.
> >
> > I don't know if OSGeo would rather put them on a filesystem or have
> > everything in SVN, in which case a new SVN repo for 1 and 2 would
> > probably be the thing, then I'd push everything to it.
> >
> > If we don't get this done by end-of-year then I doubt it will get done
> > afterwards.
> >
> > Barry
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
*Jo Cook*
Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18
7RL, UK
t:+44 7930 524 155
iShare - Data integration and publishing platform

*

 Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no.
864201149.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Jeff McKenna]

As for the  Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
OSGeo wiki pages.  Of course this is much easier to do from the
beginning of the event planning.  We can add this to the 2013 lessons
learned page for sure.

Thanks for taking this time to share your files.  They are super
important for future FOSS4G local committees.

-jeff



On 2013-12-04 10:39 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
> 
>  1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
> mapgallery images: 74Mb
> 
>  2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
> 
>  3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
> 
>  4. Google Docs: ???Mb
> 
> I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
> map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
> touch about 3 and 4.
> 
> Could someone on the exec kickstart the process whereby I can put
> these things, if OSGeo still want them, onto storage somewhere.
> 
> I don't know if OSGeo would rather put them on a filesystem or have
> everything in SVN, in which case a new SVN repo for 1 and 2 would
> probably be the thing, then I'd push everything to it.
> 
> If we don't get this done by end-of-year then I doubt it will get done
> afterwards.
> 
> Barry
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Barry Rowlingson]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jo Cook  wrote:
> There's already a repository for 2013 at
> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
> documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
> currently wgetting the basecamp project that we were using, so I can verify
> that we will also be archiving that- however until it finishes I don't know
> how much disk space it's going to take up.

 Okay, so as long as OSGeo isn't bothered with over 300Mb of map
gallery binaries (which shouldn't change) being upped there I'll get
on with it.

Barry
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Jo Cook]

There's already a repository for 2013 at
http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
currently wgetting the basecamp project that we were using, so I can verify
that we will also be archiving that- however until it finishes I don't know
how much disk space it's going to take up.

Jo


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Barry Rowlingson <
b.rowling...@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

> The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
>
>  1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
> mapgallery images: 74Mb
>
>  2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
>
>  3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
>
>  4. Google Docs: ???Mb
>
> I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
> map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
> touch about 3 and 4.
>
> Could someone on the exec kickstart the process whereby I can put
> these things, if OSGeo still want them, onto storage somewhere.
>
> I don't know if OSGeo would rather put them on a filesystem or have
> everything in SVN, in which case a new SVN repo for 1 and 2 would
> probably be the thing, then I'd push everything to it.
>
> If we don't get this done by end-of-year then I doubt it will get done
> afterwards.
>
> Barry
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
*Jo Cook*
Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18
7RL, UK
t:+44 7930 524 155
iShare - Data integration and publishing platform

*

 Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no.
864201149.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

[Barry Rowlingson]

The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:

 1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
mapgallery images: 74Mb

 2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb

 3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc

 4. Google Docs: ???Mb

I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
touch about 3 and 4.

Could someone on the exec kickstart the process whereby I can put
these things, if OSGeo still want them, onto storage somewhere.

I don't know if OSGeo would rather put them on a filesystem or have
everything in SVN, in which case a new SVN repo for 1 and 2 would
probably be the thing, then I'd push everything to it.

If we don't get this done by end-of-year then I doubt it will get done
afterwards.

Barry
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss