Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-12-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 10:44 Wed 12 Nov , Michael Hammer wrote:
 * Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081112 00:46]: 
  What issues do you see with having a wiki?  
 
 Pages of poor quality with wrong informations.

The wiki already exists and is popular, so these already happen. Even if 
it's not official it says gentoo and people will associate it with 
their Gentoo experience regardless of whether we host it.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


pgpTJ8aNJkR7r.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-12-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 16:52 Tue 11 Nov , Joe Peterson wrote:
 As for Wikipedia, there is always the fear that the info will be
 incorrect, but time has shown that wikis tend to be very accurate and
 get corrected quickly when not.

A page's likelihood of correctness is roughly inversely proportional to 
its popularity. Try a specialized topic outside of computers, and there 
may well be errors that only an expert will catch -- others will just be 
deceived.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


pgpVthBP3nkdD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-13 Thread Tobias Scherbaum
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having
  a wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us
  having a wiki?
 
 What will policy on articles that are horribly dangerous or outright
 wrong? Is Gentoo prepared to block or warn about articles that recommend
 stupid things? If a warning is used, what will be used to distinguish
 between a generic wiki, not necessarily checked by sane people and a
 article known to be horrible?

Wikipedia started using an extension for marking pages as validated.
See [1]. This would allow us to setup a group of trusted
people (developers, long-time users, well-known contributors - for
example) who would be able to review pages and tag them that way.
Non-reviewed pages could show a header then clearly stating that this
specific page hasn't been reviewed and might contain inaccurate
information.

  Tobias

[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs



signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-13 Thread Petteri Räty
Jan Kundrát wrote:
 kashani wrote:
 How easy is it to checkout current GDP docs
 
 Append ?passthru=1 to the end of the URL.
 
 and make changes to them?
 
 I take it you want to make a patch. In such case, edit the file and
 submit the diff via Bugzilla.
 
 Cheers,
 -jkt
 

Or use anoncvs for the gentoo module.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Ben Sanchez
Are you considering to replace the mediawiki with a different wiki system such 
as moinmoin?

On Wednesday 12 November 2008 7:49:58 am Michael Hammer wrote:
 * Gokdeniz Karadag [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081112 13:06]:
  Petteri Räty demis ki::
   Michael Hammer wrote:
   We should develop some kind of review process and at least the
   possiblity to lock and hide pages of poor quality. In the most cases
   the howtos are related to some herds. What if we have a reviewed
   section where herds can approve pages and user can be sure that the
   infos provided have a minimum of quality.
  
   We already have a reviewed section. It's called GDP.

 You're fully right! The GDP can therefore be the reviewed sections
 where documents from the wiki are transfered to.

  The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, which
  can become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by
  developers.

 That's the way I intended my proposal. As some kind of early state GDP
 documents. It's an unwritten fact that user are willing to contribute
 to wiki systems - but I've never received an xml file for our GDP
 written by a user ;) ... The wiki can be the place to develop new
 howtos by disburding the devs - IMHO.

 g, mueli





Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Jan Kundrát

Michael Hammer wrote:

The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, which can
become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by developers.


...as long as they use a compatible license, is not the case right now 
(and never was, IIRC).



That's the way I intended my proposal. As some kind of early state GDP
documents. It's an unwritten fact that user are willing to contribute
to wiki systems - but I've never received an xml file for our GDP
written by a user ;) ... The wiki can be the place to develop new
howtos by disburding the devs - IMHO.


Contrary to popular belief, we (the GDP) don't require submissions in 
any particular format. We have plenty of monkeys that can convert just 
about anything to our fancy internal format. We do our best to 
communicate this fact to other people in Gentoo, but apparently it's a 
tough job, as I don't recall much submissions in non-XML form.


Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub  more beer  /dev/mouth



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Petteri Räty
Michael Hammer wrote:
 * Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081112 00:46]: 
 What are others feelings on this?  
 
 I like the idea!
 
 What issues do you see with having a wiki?  
 
 Pages of poor quality with wrong informations.
 
 Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?
 
 We should develop some kind of review process and at least the
 possiblity to lock and hide pages of poor quality. In the most cases
 the howtos are related to some herds. What if we have a reviewed
 section where herds can approve pages and user can be sure that the
 infos provided have a minimum of quality.
 
 g, mueli
 

We already have a reviewed section. It's called GDP.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Michael Hammer
* Gokdeniz Karadag [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081112 13:06]:
 Petteri Räty demis ki::
  Michael Hammer wrote:
  We should develop some kind of review process and at least the
  possiblity to lock and hide pages of poor quality. In the most cases
  the howtos are related to some herds. What if we have a reviewed
  section where herds can approve pages and user can be sure that the
  infos provided have a minimum of quality.
  
  We already have a reviewed section. It's called GDP.

You're fully right! The GDP can therefore be the reviewed sections
where documents from the wiki are transfered to.

 The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, which can
 become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by developers.

That's the way I intended my proposal. As some kind of early state GDP
documents. It's an unwritten fact that user are willing to contribute
to wiki systems - but I've never received an xml file for our GDP
written by a user ;) ... The wiki can be the place to develop new
howtos by disburding the devs - IMHO.

g, mueli

-- 

Michael Hammer|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Graz, AT
Gentoo Developer (Kerberos)  |  http://www.michael-hammer.at


pgpXImZvVf3Nc.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Gokdeniz Karadag


Petteri Räty demis ki::
 Michael Hammer wrote:
 * Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081112 00:46]: 
 What are others feelings on this?  
 I like the idea!

 What issues do you see with having a wiki?  
 Pages of poor quality with wrong informations.

 Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?
 We should develop some kind of review process and at least the
 possiblity to lock and hide pages of poor quality. In the most cases
 the howtos are related to some herds. What if we have a reviewed
 section where herds can approve pages and user can be sure that the
 infos provided have a minimum of quality.

 g, mueli

 
 We already have a reviewed section. It's called GDP.
 
 Regards,
 Petteri
 

The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, which can
become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by developers.

-- 
Gokdeniz Karadag




Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Josh Saddler
Gokdeniz Karadag wrote:
 The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, which can
 become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by developers.

. . . no, I'd think not.

It takes time and effort to produce one of our polished, professional
documents. That's duplicating the time and effort that it takes to write
a decent wiki article -- pointless duplication.

One of the things I'm hearing from just about every other user and
developer is that users would be providing the peer review necessary to
keep documents at a general level of quality. This means let the wiki
live its wiki life, which means there's no need to reformat the article
as something else. If it's a decent wiki article, then it should stand
on its own meritsas a wiki article, nothing else. It's a community
contributed article on the community-contributed resource. That's where
it belongs.

Most folks have said they're okay with official Gentoo documentation and
a second community-contributed resource (that may not be as accurate,
tested, readable, etc.) So keep that system around. If you want to jot
up a quick howto, or an article filled with individual speculation and
anecdotes, keep it on the wiki. If you want a doc to be considered *the*
authority on its subject (such as
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml ;)), maintained by Gentoo
developers, then submit it to the GDP via bugzilla, or provide updates
to one of the docs we already have.

There really is no reason why we can't have this split. There's no need
to XMLify every halfway decent wiki article just because it's so much
better than everything else on the wiki. Trying to do so involves an
inordinate number of work hours and staff that we just don't have, not
to mention greatly raising the existing maintainer burden.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Joe Peterson
Josh Saddler wrote:
 It takes time and effort to produce one of our polished, professional
 documents. That's duplicating the time and effort that it takes to write
 a decent wiki article -- pointless duplication.
 
 One of the things I'm hearing from just about every other user and
 developer is that users would be providing the peer review necessary to
 keep documents at a general level of quality. This means let the wiki
 live its wiki life, which means there's no need to reformat the article
 as something else. If it's a decent wiki article, then it should stand
 on its own meritsas a wiki article, nothing else. It's a community
 contributed article on the community-contributed resource. That's where
 it belongs.
 
 Most folks have said they're okay with official Gentoo documentation and
 a second community-contributed resource (that may not be as accurate,
 tested, readable, etc.) So keep that system around. If you want to jot
 up a quick howto, or an article filled with individual speculation and
 anecdotes, keep it on the wiki. If you want a doc to be considered *the*
 authority on its subject (such as
 http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml ;)), maintained by Gentoo
 developers, then submit it to the GDP via bugzilla, or provide updates
 to one of the docs we already have.
 
 There really is no reason why we can't have this split. There's no need
 to XMLify every halfway decent wiki article just because it's so much
 better than everything else on the wiki. Trying to do so involves an
 inordinate number of work hours and staff that we just don't have, not
 to mention greatly raising the existing maintainer burden.

++  Good plan.

-Joe




Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread kashani

Jan Kundrát wrote:

Michael Hammer wrote:
The wiki can be a staging ground for user contributed documents, 
which can

become part of official docs after a review and cleanup by developers.


...as long as they use a compatible license, is not the case right now 
(and never was, IIRC).



That's the way I intended my proposal. As some kind of early state GDP
documents. It's an unwritten fact that user are willing to contribute
to wiki systems - but I've never received an xml file for our GDP
written by a user ;) ... The wiki can be the place to develop new
howtos by disburding the devs - IMHO.


Contrary to popular belief, we (the GDP) don't require submissions in 
any particular format. We have plenty of monkeys that can convert just 
about anything to our fancy internal format. We do our best to 
communicate this fact to other people in Gentoo, but apparently it's a 
tough job, as I don't recall much submissions in non-XML form.


	How easy is it to checkout current GDP docs and make changes to them? I 
believe I looked into updating the old and crufty Virtual Mail How-to 
and decided it was easier to create a new one at gentoo-wiki.


kashani




Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Jan Kundrát

kashani wrote:

How easy is it to checkout current GDP docs


Append ?passthru=1 to the end of the URL.


and make changes to them?


I take it you want to make a patch. In such case, edit the file and 
submit the diff via Bugzilla.


Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub  more beer  /dev/mouth



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Michael Hammer
* Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081112 00:46]: 
 What are others feelings on this?  

I like the idea!

 What issues do you see with having a wiki?  

Pages of poor quality with wrong informations.

 Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?

We should develop some kind of review process and at least the
possiblity to lock and hide pages of poor quality. In the most cases
the howtos are related to some herds. What if we have a reviewed
section where herds can approve pages and user can be sure that the
infos provided have a minimum of quality.

g, mueli

-- 

Michael Hammer|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Graz, AT
Gentoo Developer (Kerberos)  |  http://www.michael-hammer.at


pgp5ShaoKtcXa.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-12 Thread Eray Aslan
On 12.11.2008 11:44, Michael Hammer wrote:
 * Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081112 00:46]: 
 What are others feelings on this?  
 
 I like the idea!
 
 What issues do you see with having a wiki?  
 
 Pages of poor quality with wrong informations.
 
 Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?
 
 We should develop some kind of review process 

Ugh, got lots of free time?  If you want to help, provide hosting or
such.  A hands off approach should be preferred for wiki.  We know it is
written by users and some poor quality and even wrong info is expected.
 Wikis are good for pointers and ideas only.  We know that and act
accordingly.  Moreover, we have official gentoo docs anyway.

Developer time is better spent doing, well, developer stuff rather than
reviewing some wiki.  If you insist on review, it will be at best a
stale small site and at worst will cut into your developer time.

For what it is worth, as a user I vote you spend time developing gentoo.
-- 
Eray

 and at least the
 possiblity to lock and hide pages of poor quality. In the most cases
 the howtos are related to some herds. What if we have a reviewed
 section where herds can approve pages and user can be sure that the
 infos provided have a minimum of quality.
 
 g, mueli
 




Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Joe Peterson
Mark Loeser wrote:
 What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having a
 wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?

+1!  I have set up several wikis for work projects and used many others
to great benefit.  Even those (on my work projects) who were skeptical
at first warmed to the idea and quickly became dependent on such tools.

As for Wikipedia, there is always the fear that the info will be
incorrect, but time has shown that wikis tend to be very accurate and
get corrected quickly when not.

-Joe



Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Josh Saddler
Mark Loeser wrote:
 So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
 our users something that is useful.  Its back now, but I think we should
 consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
 We already have something very similar to this on the forums, and this
 would just give the correct tool to put their documentation on.
 
 I already know some people are going to hate this idea and say that the
 documentation could be wrong, etc, so lets look at how others have
 handled this situation.  It seems that Ubuntu has their own official
 documentation section and a community section where users can contribute
 to.  We can put a nice big warning saying that the user documentation
 may have some errors, and that any such errors should not be directed at
 the maintainers of the package or the GDP.
 
 What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having a
 wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?
 

I've asked my fellow GDP members to weigh in on this issue on our ML;
the discussion is already in-progress here:

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-doc/msg_dd4f573fc6384108fdf14dfa27030906.xml

Or, if you like it gmane-style:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.documentation/2903



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Ferris McCormick
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
 our users something that is useful.  Its back now, but I think we should
 consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
 We already have something very similar to this on the forums, and this
 would just give the correct tool to put their documentation on.
 
 I already know some people are going to hate this idea and say that the
 documentation could be wrong, etc, so lets look at how others have
 handled this situation.  It seems that Ubuntu has their own official
 documentation section and a community section where users can contribute
 to.  We can put a nice big warning saying that the user documentation
 may have some errors, and that any such errors should not be directed at
 the maintainers of the package or the GDP.
 
 What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having a
 wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
 wiki?
 

I'm for it.  I think the positives --- more communications paths,
community building, providing something our users want --- outweigh the
negatives (entries might be incorrect or irrelevant or whatever).  I
think it's understood that contributions might contain errors, but the
can be corrected.  I don't know about Ubuntu's community section, but I
do find Wikipedia very useful even though I know it might be wrong. :)

 -- 
 Mark Loeser
 email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
 email -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
 web   -   http://www.halcy0n.com

Regards,
Ferris
--
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Iain Buchanan

Mark Loeser wrote:

So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
our users something that is useful.  Its back now, but I think we should
consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
We already have something very similar to this on the forums, and this
would just give the correct tool to put their documentation on.

I already know some people are going to hate this idea and say that the
documentation could be wrong, etc, so lets look at how others have
handled this situation.

[snip]

IMHO, the old gentoo-wiki (don't know if the new one will address it) 
does let you down when pages are out of date.


The solution I like is the wikipedia idea: There is a tag for marking 
pages as outdated / inaccurate, and if a page has the outdated tag for 
too long it's removed / archived.


Much like treecleaning!
--
Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au

You know you're using the computer too much when:
refer to traffic lights as routers.
-- C J Pro



Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having
 a wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us
 having a wiki?

What will policy on articles that are horribly dangerous or outright
wrong? Is Gentoo prepared to block or warn about articles that recommend
stupid things? If a warning is used, what will be used to distinguish
between a generic wiki, not necessarily checked by sane people and a
article known to be horrible?

The problem with wikis is that enough of them contain enough good
information that people assume that all of them are entirely correct.
Even if warnings are used, the assumption is often well I was warned
about another article too and that turned out OK so I can ignore the
warning. And whilst it might be OK for some people to say well, we
warned you, so tough luck, it makes life very difficult for developers
who end up having to deal with hordes of users with broken systems...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Iain Buchanan

Hi,

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
Mark Loeser[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:

What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having
a wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us
having a wiki?


What will policy on articles that are horribly dangerous or outright
wrong?


see my previous email - wikipedia looks like they're writing a robot to 
deal with Articles that need attention[1].  We could do the same, 
there's nothing stopping us from deleting really bad pages.  (archives 
are always available for someone who wants to revive and improve them).


There's also the huge amount of Cleanup tags[2] which I really like 
(the principle, not the huge amount).  We could tailor this however we 
wanted.


  Is Gentoo prepared to block or warn about articles that recommend
 stupid things?

I think we definitely should.  Someone needs to discover that the 
article does so first!


  If a warning is used, what will be used to distinguish
 between a generic wiki, not necessarily checked by sane people and a
 article known to be horrible?

Cleanup tags!  One for each.  Nice notice written at the top of the 
article saying exactly what you've said.



The problem with wikis is that enough of them contain enough good
information that people assume that all of them are entirely correct.


sure, but isn't that similar to, say, a forum?


Even if warnings are used, the assumption is often well I was warned
about another article too and that turned out OK so I can ignore the
warning.


sure, some users are idiots :)  Better idiot proofing doesn't protect 
you - it only creates better idiots. (I don't have a reference for this 
one).



 And whilst it might be OK for some people to say well, we
warned you, so tough luck, it makes life very difficult for developers
who end up having to deal with hordes of users with broken systems...


I agree tough luck might be a response by some, so the user will go to 
the next person to help.  I don't think this would necessarily fall back 
to developers.  Just like forums, mailing lists and the current wiki, 
there is good and bad advice.  From my experience on the gentoo-user 
list, bad advice generally gets noticed and corrected reasonably 
quickly.  Even big stuffups (oops I unmerged python) are helped.


There is a good culture on the user list which still calls an idiot an 
idiot.  The common one being people using ~ARCH on a remote production 
box, then complaining it broke for a ~ related reason, adding that they 
have no physical access (it happens often enough).  The usual response 
is you shouldn't have done it, you were warned, here's how to fix it. 
 I see no problem with this.


  it makes life very difficult for developers
 who end up having to deal with hordes of users with broken systems...

The only place where I could see specific developer loading, is users 
who take their problems as a result of following bad advice to bugzilla. 
 I wouldn't expect the hordes would go there first...


Anyway, the wiki exists with all it's bad advice already.  Making it 
official would only improve it and hence reduce developer loading, IMHO.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_resources

cya,
--
Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au

Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse.
-- Oscar Wilde



Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Jeremy Olexa

Mark Loeser wrote:

So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
our users something that is useful.  Its back now, but I think we should
consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
We already have something very similar to this on the forums, and this
would just give the correct tool to put their documentation on.

I already know some people are going to hate this idea and say that the
documentation could be wrong, etc, so lets look at how others have
handled this situation.  It seems that Ubuntu has their own official
documentation section and a community section where users can contribute
to.  We can put a nice big warning saying that the user documentation
may have some errors, and that any such errors should not be directed at
the maintainers of the package or the GDP.

What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having a
wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
wiki?



I have been following gentoo-wiki's new procedures and rebuild process 
and I think they are on a good track right now.


I am throwing this out there, can we ask Mike Valstar for a dump of all 
his stuff, slap it on gentoo hardware under a wiki.gentoo.org link? It 
could be a community building experience and offering the stability of 
gentoo hardware to a service like gentoo-wiki. Maybe also invite Mike to 
be the admin of said hardware, etc. Thoughts?


(I don't know what a community wiki would require for infra hardware, 
maybe someone will chime in)


2 cents,
Jeremy



Re: [gentoo-dev] An official Gentoo wiki

2008-11-11 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:39:41PM -0600, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
 I am throwing this out there, can we ask Mike Valstar for a dump of all his 
 stuff, slap it on gentoo hardware under a wiki.gentoo.org link?

 It could be a community building experience and offering the
 stability of gentoo hardware to a service like gentoo-wiki. Maybe also
 invite Mike to be the admin of said hardware, etc. Thoughts?
I'd like to answer this on two fronts.

As infra, I did offer hosting to Mike Valstar shortly after their
downtime started. However he turned me down as somebody else offered him
much beefier hardware (overkill hardware in my personal opinion). An
additional minor concern were the Google ads he runs, which might not be
possible at some of our sponsors.

My offer for remote backups for him still stands, and I have not
received any response on it from Mike.

Additionally, there are license concerns about their existing content,
as it was originally one license, and was then blanket re-licensed (see
the mails on the gentoo-doc list for more details). Any new Gentoo-run
wiki could enforce our docs license of CC-Attribution/ShareALike from
the start.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer  Infra Guy
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgpXHDc3y246w.pgp
Description: PGP signature