You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk> on 2013/01/25 14:21:31 UTC
[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
----
[ ] +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.
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
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
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
> [ ] +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
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rumble@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
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
+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
rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbowen@apache.org
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Posted by MATSUMOTO Ryosue <ma...@gmail.com>.
>
>
> ----
> 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: [Result] [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
Oh, a vote deep in the middle of a discussion thread :-(
nd
On Monday 28 January 2013 14:25:09 Daniel Gruno wrote:
> With the clock passing 13:20 GMT, the voting has ended, and been
> tallied. There was some concern about the DNS solution in the proposal,
> which has been adjusted to a subdirectory instead (and all URLs on the
> old site has been adjusted to use relative hrefs), and with no
> objections to that, the votes are as follows:
>
> +1: 15(13) - humbedooh, trawick, rpluem, jim, niq, fuankg, gsmith,
> rbowen, minfrin, rjung, sfritsch, covener, fielding,
> gmcdonald (ex officio, non-binding in this case),
> matsumoto (non-binding)
> 0: none
> -1: none
>
> And thus, I am pleased to say the vote passes. I will begin prepping bil
> (the machine on which all of this runs) for the new site and piggyback
> the old site onto the new one. I will also send out an email to module
> maintainers, informing them of the new site, once it's up and running
> well. I will also start a thread on modules-dev@httpd.apache.org to get
> some suggestions and reviews coming in at a steady pace.
>
> Thanks for your votes and support, and I hope to see you enjoying the
> new site!
>
>
> With regards,
> Daniel, on behalf of the team behind the new site.
>
> PS: We are now 4 people working on the site, but if anyone else would
> like to volunteer, we can always use an extra helping hand.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Proposal (for record keeping's sake)
> ------------------------------------
> 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules.apache.org/archive
> 2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and
> modules.apache.org/archive 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.
[Result] [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Posted by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>.
With the clock passing 13:20 GMT, the voting has ended, and been
tallied. There was some concern about the DNS solution in the proposal,
which has been adjusted to a subdirectory instead (and all URLs on the
old site has been adjusted to use relative hrefs), and with no
objections to that, the votes are as follows:
+1: 15(13) - humbedooh, trawick, rpluem, jim, niq, fuankg, gsmith,
rbowen, minfrin, rjung, sfritsch, covener, fielding,
gmcdonald (ex officio, non-binding in this case),
matsumoto (non-binding)
0: none
-1: none
And thus, I am pleased to say the vote passes. I will begin prepping bil
(the machine on which all of this runs) for the new site and piggyback
the old site onto the new one. I will also send out an email to module
maintainers, informing them of the new site, once it's up and running
well. I will also start a thread on modules-dev@httpd.apache.org to get
some suggestions and reviews coming in at a steady pace.
Thanks for your votes and support, and I hope to see you enjoying the
new site!
With regards,
Daniel, on behalf of the team behind the new site.
PS: We are now 4 people working on the site, but if anyone else would
like to volunteer, we can always use an extra helping hand.
------------------------------------
Proposal (for record keeping's sake)
------------------------------------
1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules.apache.org/archive
2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and
modules.apache.org/archive 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.
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
+1
....Roy
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@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
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno <ru...@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
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
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
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno <ru...@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
Posted by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>.
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
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rumble@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
Posted by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>.
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
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
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
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Nick Kew <ni...@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
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
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
Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.
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
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@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
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jan 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Daniel Gruno <ru...@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.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A
View my availability: http://tungle.me/sctemme
Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
Posted by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>.
On 01/25/2013 04:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno <ru...@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
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno <ru...@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