Hello,

I'm just a basic user who tries to answer some mails from time to time ...
But I'm quite confident in XWiki comitters, contributors, and in SAS
members, to drive the project in the best way for all :) By the way I always
thought xwiki.org and xwiki.com were so much different, that at first I
thought it was talking about a completely different product (which is not
exactly true nor false), so adding some "links" between them seems not to be
a bad idea to me.

BR,
Jeremie

2010/3/15 Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net>

>
> On Dec 16, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Fabio Mancinelli wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 4, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >
> >> Governance Proposal
> >> =================
> >>
> >> 1) xwiki.org is controlled by the XWiki committers. This means that
> >> important changes brought to it should be discussed/vote on the list,
> >> using the same practices as for code commits
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> 2) xwiki.org stays open in edit mode to all external contributors (and
> >> XWiki committers continue to monitor it to remove spam, etc)
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> 3) we agree to start with 3 zones where companies can advertise their
> >> commercial offers on top of the XWiki open source product:
> >> -- On the download page (for business packages, subscriptions, hosting)
> >> -- On the support page (for services: support, consulting)
> >> -- (still to be defined) Possibly on a "Products" tab in the new
> >> horizontal navigation. The idea would be to do as jboss.org is doing.
> >> Projects are open source and community and Products are commercial
> >
> > +1
> > And I agree with Marius' remark about the fact that only products that
> are built on top of XWiki could be advertised
> >
> >> 4) the company offerings are listed by their amount of contributions
> >> to the XWiki open source project. The company that contributes most
> >> (XWiki SAS today) gets the best spots (top of the list, bigger space)
> >
> > +1
> > This however is tricky...
> > In order to define what "contribute most" means we need a metric, and
> that's not an easy thing to do.
> >
> > Maybe we could use a linear combination of weights assigned to the
> priority an issue has and an index for its "perceived" difficulty (I saw
> people tagging issues with their difficulty when handling the backlog in a
> Scrum-oriented process). Maybe LOC-count could go into the mix (the less the
> better :)) And maybe also time should influence the result (company that had
> a punctual high-quality contribution should not be listed forever if it
> stops contributing)
> >
> > The ranking is calculated wrt to this combination and a minimum threshold
> should be reached in order to be ranked.
> >
> > I don't really know how to handle this, but if we propose a ranking we
> need also to propose a policy about how it is calculated.
>
> Yes this is hard.
>
>  One idea is:
> - number of LOC (patches not included - we need to reward committership
> which is a commitment on the long run)
> - when same number of LOC then use alphabetical order.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> >
> >> 5) Companies who want to be listed should provide some proof of their
> >> contributions to the XWiki open source project
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> 6) XWiki SAS gets some acknowledgment for paying for the xwiki.org
> >> server/maintenance of it. Probably somewhere in the footer of the site
> >> or on side panel somewhere
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> 7) xwiki.org should always remain a site for the xwiki open source
> >> community
> >>
> > +1
> >
> > -Fabio
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to