Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>]

So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy way for
someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth discussing how
we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is around
documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the documentation then
it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.

Here's the process I went through.
1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
6. Tried to Edit a page

Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.

I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and found
that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.  There's
seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
community editing

1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of the site.
 BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to create an
account on their own wiki.
2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One locked down
like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.  The open
space seems mostly focused on documentation.

I think the Felix route is probably best.

Thoughts?

Alex Salazar
571-276-7777
alex@alexsalazar.com

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>]

For all these reasons, Tapestry requires a CLA from all contributors.
Compared to creating documentation patches against APT format (in
principle, not that difficult either), requiring a CLA w/ confluence
has significantly lower the barrier of entry. If it's just a typo fix,
committers have been happy to apply changes as they come to the
mailing list.

Kalle


On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Craig L Russell
<cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
>>> Is it really too much to ask that folks who can publish on the official
>>> site
>>> register and acknowledge that they are intending to contribute to the
>>> project (via a CLA)?
>>
>> Do you mean registering for Confluence or the CMS?  If so, I would
>> think that would be very copacetic.
>>
>> But requiring a CLA just to contribute a typo fix or a add a
>> paragraph?  I think most people wouldn't bother.  But those are the
>> things that add up quite a bit in documentation, especially as it
>> pertains to keeping things current, so it'd be a shame to miss out on
>> them.
>
> There is a somewhat running discussion in Apache about how big a
> contribution has to be before the contributor needs to sign a CLA. A line of
> code? A paragraph of text for documentation? A class in the implementation?
> A test class? A test suite?
>
> There is a separate issue (for me, at least) of whether unknown persons have
> the ability to publish (automatically push changes to an official site). At
> least, let's have contributions vetted before they go live (and get picked
> up by Google and other spiders and subsequently become part of the project's
> permanent history).
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> Les
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>]

On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

>> Is it really too much to ask that folks who can publish on the  
>> official site
>> register and acknowledge that they are intending to contribute to the
>> project (via a CLA)?
>
> Do you mean registering for Confluence or the CMS?  If so, I would
> think that would be very copacetic.
>
> But requiring a CLA just to contribute a typo fix or a add a
> paragraph?  I think most people wouldn't bother.  But those are the
> things that add up quite a bit in documentation, especially as it
> pertains to keeping things current, so it'd be a shame to miss out on
> them.

There is a somewhat running discussion in Apache about how big a  
contribution has to be before the contributor needs to sign a CLA. A  
line of code? A paragraph of text for documentation? A class in the  
implementation? A test class? A test suite?

There is a separate issue (for me, at least) of whether unknown  
persons have the ability to publish (automatically push changes to an  
official site). At least, let's have contributions vetted before they  
go live (and get picked up by Google and other spiders and  
subsequently become part of the project's permanent history).

Craig


>
> Les

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>]

> Is it really too much to ask that folks who can publish on the official site
> register and acknowledge that they are intending to contribute to the
> project (via a CLA)?

Do you mean registering for Confluence or the CMS?  If so, I would
think that would be very copacetic.

But requiring a CLA just to contribute a typo fix or a add a
paragraph?  I think most people wouldn't bother.  But those are the
things that add up quite a bit in documentation, especially as it
pertains to keeping things current, so it'd be a shame to miss out on
them.

Les

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>]

On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Alex Salazar wrote:

> Craig,
>
> Can you clarify?
>
> We decided to allow the community at large to edit documentation and  
> were
> flexible on the CLA issue, could that content be autoexported to
> shiro.apache.org so that it looked good and loaded quickly in a  
> browser?

I think you're asking for trouble allowing the public to edit  
documentation that then automatically becomes part of the official web  
site (as opposed to "community discussion").

Is it really too much to ask that folks who can publish on the  
official site register and acknowledge that they are intending to  
contribute to the project (via a CLA)?

Craig
>
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> A fair point.
>>
>> So for right now, in our current environment, I still think it  
>> makes sense
>> to create a separate documentation wiki to keep the adding and  
>> editing
>> permissions easy. Unless of course there's a simpler solution... I  
>> always
>> like simpler solutions.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kalle Korhonen <
>> kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Great insight Craig.  Do you know if there's any public  
>>>> discussion about
>>> the
>>>> move to a CMS?
>>>
>>> There's been plenty of chatter about it @infra.
>>>
>>>> So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make  
>>>> sense to
>>>> just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one
>>> anyways.
>>>> And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig
>>>> highlighted below where documentation and useful user  
>>>> contributions are
>>>> stored.  This could be restricted to people who register for the  
>>>> wiki
>>> and
>>>> since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be
>>> something
>>>> most intent contributors would be ok with.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. I
>>> understand the reasons for moving to CMS but Confluence has proven  
>>> to
>>> lower barrier of entry for improved documentation and the upgrades
>>> have helped performance enough to improve the state from nearly
>>> catastrophic to mere drastic. Auto-exporting is just not the only to
>>> to do Confluence backed sites, which is the main problem with the
>>> current infrastructure. Tapestry is in the same boat and I'd  
>>> assume a
>>> quite a few other projects as well. Confluence itself is not going
>>> away.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell
>>>> <cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
>>>>>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
>>>>>> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group  
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure  
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if  
>>>>>> we're
>>>>>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can  
>>>>>> post, even
>>>>>> those who haven't submitted a CLA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their  
>>>>> wikis as
>>>>> they like, so this is really a project question.
>>>>>
>>>>> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as  
>>>>> our web
>>>>> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited  
>>>>> shelf life
>>> here
>>>>> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that  
>>>>> will
>>> become
>>>>> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example,  
>>>>>> Jira
>>>>>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all  
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says
>>>>>
>>>>> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per  
>>>>> theApache
>>> License
>>>>> §5)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't that
>>>>>> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the  
>>>>>> barrier to
>>>>>> entry for those who legitimately want to help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
>>>>> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to
>>> project
>>>>> committers)
>>>>> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions
>>> (should
>>>>> be restricted to "known" users)
>>>>> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)
>>>>>
>>>>> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can  
>>>>> attack it
>>> and
>>>>> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <alex@alexsalazar.com 
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be  
>>>>>>> an easy
>>> way
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth
>>> discussing
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a  
>>>>>>> problem is
>>> around
>>>>>>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the
>>> documentation
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the process I went through.
>>>>>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
>>>>>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
>>>>>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
>>>>>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
>>>>>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
>>>>>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard  
>>>>>>> and
>>> found
>>>>>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.
>>> There's
>>>>>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
>>>>>>> community editing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any  
>>>>>>> part of
>>> the
>>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>> BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to
>>> create
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> account on their own wiki.
>>>>>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One
>>> locked
>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style  
>>>>>>> contribution.
>>> The
>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Salazar
>>>>>>> 571-276-7777
>>>>>>> alex@alexsalazar.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>> Architect, Oracle
>>>>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>]

The big question for me is does the ASF _mandate_ that user guide
content be formulated by CLA submitters, or can anyone contribute to
documentation?  If not mandated, my vote would be to allow that
content.  Practically any barrier to improving documentation is a bad
thing IMO (unless there are mandated legal reasons for it otherwise).

Thoughts?

Les

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> Can you clarify?
>
> We decided to allow the community at large to edit documentation and were
> flexible on the CLA issue, could that content be autoexported to
> shiro.apache.org so that it looked good and loaded quickly in a browser?
>
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com> wrote:
>
>> A fair point.
>>
>> So for right now, in our current environment, I still think it makes sense
>> to create a separate documentation wiki to keep the adding and editing
>> permissions easy. Unless of course there's a simpler solution... I always
>> like simpler solutions.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kalle Korhonen <
>> kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Great insight Craig.  Do you know if there's any public discussion about
>>> the
>>> > move to a CMS?
>>>
>>> There's been plenty of chatter about it @infra.
>>>
>>> > So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make sense to
>>> > just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one
>>> anyways.
>>> > And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig
>>> > highlighted below where documentation and useful user contributions are
>>> > stored.  This could be restricted to people who register for the wiki
>>> and
>>> > since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be
>>> something
>>> > most intent contributors would be ok with.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. I
>>> understand the reasons for moving to CMS but Confluence has proven to
>>> lower barrier of entry for improved documentation and the upgrades
>>> have helped performance enough to improve the state from nearly
>>> catastrophic to mere drastic. Auto-exporting is just not the only to
>>> to do Confluence backed sites, which is the main problem with the
>>> current infrastructure. Tapestry is in the same boat and I'd assume a
>>> quite a few other projects as well. Confluence itself is not going
>>> away.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell
>>> > <cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>  It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
>>> >>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
>>> >>> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
>>> >>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
>>> >>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
>>> >>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even
>>> >>> those who haven't submitted a CLA?
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their wikis as
>>> >> they like, so this is really a project question.
>>> >>
>>> >> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our web
>>> >> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf life
>>> here
>>> >> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that will
>>> become
>>> >> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
>>> >>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
>>> >>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says
>>> >>
>>> >> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache
>>> License
>>> >> §5)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>  Can't that
>>> >>> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier to
>>> >>> entry for those who legitimately want to help.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
>>> >> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to
>>> project
>>> >> committers)
>>> >> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions
>>> (should
>>> >> be restricted to "known" users)
>>> >> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)
>>> >>
>>> >> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack it
>>> and
>>> >> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Please, no.
>>> >>
>>> >> Craig
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> Les
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy
>>> way
>>> >>>> for
>>> >>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth
>>> discussing
>>> >>>> how
>>> >>>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is
>>> around
>>> >>>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the
>>> documentation
>>> >>>> then
>>> >>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Here's the process I went through.
>>> >>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
>>> >>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
>>> >>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
>>> >>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
>>> >>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
>>> >>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and
>>> found
>>> >>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.
>>>  There's
>>> >>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
>>> >>>> community editing
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of
>>> the
>>> >>>> site.
>>> >>>>  BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to
>>> create
>>> >>>> an
>>> >>>> account on their own wiki.
>>> >>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One
>>> locked
>>> >>>> down
>>> >>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.
>>>  The
>>> >>>> open
>>> >>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thoughts?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Alex Salazar
>>> >>>> 571-276-7777
>>> >>>> alex@alexsalazar.com
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >> Craig L Russell
>>> >> Architect, Oracle
>>> >> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> >> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
>>> >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>]

Craig,

Can you clarify?

We decided to allow the community at large to edit documentation and were
flexible on the CLA issue, could that content be autoexported to
shiro.apache.org so that it looked good and loaded quickly in a browser?

Alex

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com> wrote:

> A fair point.
>
> So for right now, in our current environment, I still think it makes sense
> to create a separate documentation wiki to keep the adding and editing
> permissions easy. Unless of course there's a simpler solution... I always
> like simpler solutions.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kalle Korhonen <
> kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Great insight Craig.  Do you know if there's any public discussion about
>> the
>> > move to a CMS?
>>
>> There's been plenty of chatter about it @infra.
>>
>> > So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make sense to
>> > just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one
>> anyways.
>> > And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig
>> > highlighted below where documentation and useful user contributions are
>> > stored.  This could be restricted to people who register for the wiki
>> and
>> > since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be
>> something
>> > most intent contributors would be ok with.
>>
>> Maybe, but I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. I
>> understand the reasons for moving to CMS but Confluence has proven to
>> lower barrier of entry for improved documentation and the upgrades
>> have helped performance enough to improve the state from nearly
>> catastrophic to mere drastic. Auto-exporting is just not the only to
>> to do Confluence backed sites, which is the main problem with the
>> current infrastructure. Tapestry is in the same boat and I'd assume a
>> quite a few other projects as well. Confluence itself is not going
>> away.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell
>> > <cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
>> >>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
>> >>> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
>> >>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
>> >>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
>> >>>
>> >>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
>> >>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even
>> >>> those who haven't submitted a CLA?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their wikis as
>> >> they like, so this is really a project question.
>> >>
>> >> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our web
>> >> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf life
>> here
>> >> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that will
>> become
>> >> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
>> >>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
>> >>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says
>> >>
>> >> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache
>> License
>> >> §5)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  Can't that
>> >>> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier to
>> >>> entry for those who legitimately want to help.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
>> >> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to
>> project
>> >> committers)
>> >> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions
>> (should
>> >> be restricted to "known" users)
>> >> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)
>> >>
>> >> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack it
>> and
>> >> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Please, no.
>> >>
>> >> Craig
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Les
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy
>> way
>> >>>> for
>> >>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth
>> discussing
>> >>>> how
>> >>>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is
>> around
>> >>>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the
>> documentation
>> >>>> then
>> >>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here's the process I went through.
>> >>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
>> >>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
>> >>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
>> >>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
>> >>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
>> >>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and
>> found
>> >>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.
>>  There's
>> >>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
>> >>>> community editing
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of
>> the
>> >>>> site.
>> >>>>  BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to
>> create
>> >>>> an
>> >>>> account on their own wiki.
>> >>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One
>> locked
>> >>>> down
>> >>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.
>>  The
>> >>>> open
>> >>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Alex Salazar
>> >>>> 571-276-7777
>> >>>> alex@alexsalazar.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >> Craig L Russell
>> >> Architect, Oracle
>> >> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> >> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
>> >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>]

A fair point.

So for right now, in our current environment, I still think it makes sense
to create a separate documentation wiki to keep the adding and editing
permissions easy. Unless of course there's a simpler solution... I always
like simpler solutions.

Alex


On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
> wrote:
> > Great insight Craig.  Do you know if there's any public discussion about
> the
> > move to a CMS?
>
> There's been plenty of chatter about it @infra.
>
> > So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make sense to
> > just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one
> anyways.
> > And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig
> > highlighted below where documentation and useful user contributions are
> > stored.  This could be restricted to people who register for the wiki and
> > since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be
> something
> > most intent contributors would be ok with.
>
> Maybe, but I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. I
> understand the reasons for moving to CMS but Confluence has proven to
> lower barrier of entry for improved documentation and the upgrades
> have helped performance enough to improve the state from nearly
> catastrophic to mere drastic. Auto-exporting is just not the only to
> to do Confluence backed sites, which is the main problem with the
> current infrastructure. Tapestry is in the same boat and I'd assume a
> quite a few other projects as well. Confluence itself is not going
> away.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell
> > <cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>
> >>  It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
> >>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
> >>> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
> >>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
> >>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
> >>>
> >>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
> >>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even
> >>> those who haven't submitted a CLA?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their wikis as
> >> they like, so this is really a project question.
> >>
> >> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our web
> >> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf life
> here
> >> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that will
> become
> >> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.]
> >>
> >>
> >>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
> >>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
> >>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says
> >>
> >> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache
> License
> >> §5)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Can't that
> >>> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier to
> >>> entry for those who legitimately want to help.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
> >> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to
> project
> >> committers)
> >> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions
> (should
> >> be restricted to "known" users)
> >> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)
> >>
> >> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack it
> and
> >> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
> >>
> >>
> >>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Please, no.
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >>
> >>> Les
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy
> way
> >>>> for
> >>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth
> discussing
> >>>> how
> >>>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is
> around
> >>>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the
> documentation
> >>>> then
> >>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's the process I went through.
> >>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
> >>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
> >>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
> >>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
> >>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
> >>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and
> found
> >>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.
>  There's
> >>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
> >>>> community editing
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of the
> >>>> site.
> >>>>  BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to
> create
> >>>> an
> >>>> account on their own wiki.
> >>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One locked
> >>>> down
> >>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.  The
> >>>> open
> >>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex Salazar
> >>>> 571-276-7777
> >>>> alex@alexsalazar.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> Craig L Russell
> >> Architect, Oracle
> >> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> >> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
> >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com> wrote:
> Great insight Craig.  Do you know if there's any public discussion about the
> move to a CMS?

There's been plenty of chatter about it @infra.

> So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make sense to
> just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one anyways.
> And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig
> highlighted below where documentation and useful user contributions are
> stored.  This could be restricted to people who register for the wiki and
> since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be something
> most intent contributors would be ok with.

Maybe, but I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. I
understand the reasons for moving to CMS but Confluence has proven to
lower barrier of entry for improved documentation and the upgrades
have helped performance enough to improve the state from nearly
catastrophic to mere drastic. Auto-exporting is just not the only to
to do Confluence backed sites, which is the main problem with the
current infrastructure. Tapestry is in the same boat and I'd assume a
quite a few other projects as well. Confluence itself is not going
away.

Kalle


> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell
> <cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>>  It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
>>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
>>> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
>>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
>>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
>>>
>>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
>>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even
>>> those who haven't submitted a CLA?
>>>
>>
>> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their wikis as
>> they like, so this is really a project question.
>>
>> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our web
>> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf life here
>> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that will become
>> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.]
>>
>>
>>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
>>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
>>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.
>>>
>>
>> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says
>>
>> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache License
>> §5)
>>
>>
>>
>>  Can't that
>>> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier to
>>> entry for those who legitimately want to help.
>>>
>>
>> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
>> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to project
>> committers)
>> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions (should
>> be restricted to "known" users)
>> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)
>>
>> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack it and
>> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
>>
>>
>>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...
>>>
>>
>> Please, no.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy way
>>>> for
>>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth discussing
>>>> how
>>>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is around
>>>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the documentation
>>>> then
>>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the process I went through.
>>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
>>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
>>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
>>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
>>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
>>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>>>>
>>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>>>>
>>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and found
>>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.  There's
>>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
>>>> community editing
>>>>
>>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of the
>>>> site.
>>>>  BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to create
>>>> an
>>>> account on their own wiki.
>>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One locked
>>>> down
>>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.  The
>>>> open
>>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>>>>
>>>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Alex Salazar
>>>> 571-276-7777
>>>> alex@alexsalazar.com
>>>>
>>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Oracle
>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>]

Hi,

On Feb 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Alex Salazar wrote:

> Great insight Craig.  Do you know if there's any public discussion  
> about the
> move to a CMS?

It's not on a public list but there's info on the public web site.  
I've included some more info below.

> So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make  
> sense to
> just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one  
> anyways.

Right.
>
> And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig
> highlighted below where documentation and useful user contributions  
> are
> stored.  This could be restricted to people who register for the  
> wiki and
> since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be  
> something
> most intent contributors would be ok with.

Right. But we will still need to monitor the wiki for bad content. We  
want to make it easy for folks to contribute, and this also means we  
make it easy for folks to spam us. :-(

Craig
>
> Alex
>
Here's some more info on Confluence -> CMS migration.

Craig

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Nick Burch <ni...@apache.org>
> Date: January 29, 2011 11:05:46 AM PST
> To: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> Cc: infrastructure@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Converting Confluence to CMS
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Apache CXF has rather a giant raft of Confluence. Has there been  
>> any news I've missed about tools to assist in migration?
>
> I wrote a tool which I used to migrate the ComDev site, and I  
> believe Zoe used it for the Aries one too. It's available at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/cms/conversion-utilities/cwiki
>
> Nick
Here are some links to the new CMS system.

Craig

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> Date: January 11, 2011 7:16:41 AM PST
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] starting the CMS migration process
> Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
>
> As mentioned at http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html the
> Infrastructure Team would like the IPMC to consider migrating
> to the CMS over the coming weeks.  We will be completely
> phasing out support for Confluence backed sites this year,
> and would like to encourage all Apache projects still relying
> on Anakia (such as the Incubator) to migrate as well.  This
> undoubtedly will impact current and new podlings.
>
> More information on the CMS is available at the following links:
>
> http://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/the_asf_cms
> http://wiki.apache.org/general/ApacheCms2010
> http://www.apache.org/dev/infra-site.html
> http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html
>

>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell
> <cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
>>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
>>> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
>>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
>>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
>>>
>>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
>>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post,  
>>> even
>>> those who haven't submitted a CLA?
>>>
>>
>> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their  
>> wikis as
>> they like, so this is really a project question.
>>
>> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our  
>> web
>> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf  
>> life here
>> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that  
>> will become
>> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.]
>>
>>
>>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
>>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
>>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.
>>>
>>
>> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says
>>
>> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache  
>> License
>> §5)
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't that
>>> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier  
>>> to
>>> entry for those who legitimately want to help.
>>>
>>
>> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
>> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to  
>> project
>> committers)
>> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions  
>> (should
>> be restricted to "known" users)
>> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)
>>
>> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack  
>> it and
>> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
>>
>>
>>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...
>>>
>>
>> Please, no.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an  
>>>> easy way
>>>> for
>>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth  
>>>> discussing
>>>> how
>>>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem  
>>>> is around
>>>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the  
>>>> documentation
>>>> then
>>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the process I went through.
>>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
>>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
>>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
>>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
>>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
>>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>>>>
>>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>>>>
>>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard  
>>>> and found
>>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.   
>>>> There's
>>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
>>>> community editing
>>>>
>>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part  
>>>> of the
>>>> site.
>>>> BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to  
>>>> create
>>>> an
>>>> account on their own wiki.
>>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One  
>>>> locked
>>>> down
>>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style  
>>>> contribution.  The
>>>> open
>>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>>>>
>>>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Alex Salazar
>>>> 571-276-7777
>>>> alex@alexsalazar.com
>>>>
>>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Oracle
>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>]

Great insight Craig.  Do you know if there's any public discussion about the
move to a CMS?

So if the website is likely to move to a CMS then it might make sense to
just create a separate wiki for documentation since we'll need one anyways.

And if the community agrees, we can have the wiki type that Craig
highlighted below where documentation and useful user contributions are
stored.  This could be restricted to people who register for the wiki and
since that's a fairly straight forward process, I feel it would be something
most intent contributors would be ok with.

Alex

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Craig L Russell
<cr...@oracle.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
>  It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
>> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
>> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
>> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
>> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
>>
>> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
>> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even
>> those who haven't submitted a CLA?
>>
>
> The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their wikis as
> they like, so this is really a project question.
>
> We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our web
> site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf life here
> as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool that will become
> the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call it CMS.]
>
>
>> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
>> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
>> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.
>>
>
> Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says
>
> o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache License
> §5)
>
>
>
>  Can't that
>> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier to
>> entry for those who legitimately want to help.
>>
>
> So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
> wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to project
> committers)
> wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions (should
> be restricted to "known" users)
> wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)
>
> Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack it and
> the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
>
>
>> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...
>>
>
> Please, no.
>
> Craig
>
>
>> Les
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy way
>>> for
>>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth discussing
>>> how
>>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is around
>>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the documentation
>>> then
>>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>>>
>>> Here's the process I went through.
>>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
>>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
>>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
>>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
>>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
>>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>>>
>>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>>>
>>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and found
>>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.  There's
>>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
>>> community editing
>>>
>>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of the
>>> site.
>>>  BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to create
>>> an
>>> account on their own wiki.
>>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One locked
>>> down
>>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.  The
>>> open
>>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>>>
>>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Alex Salazar
>>> 571-276-7777
>>> alex@alexsalazar.com
>>>
>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>]

Hi,

On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

> It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
> contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
> under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
> confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
> everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.
>
> Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
> allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even
> those who haven't submitted a CLA?

The Foundation gives wide latitude to projects to manage their wikis  
as they like, so this is really a project question.

We certainly want to lock down pages that will be published as our web  
site. [But you all should know that Confluence has a limited shelf  
life here as the source for web sites. The infra team has a new tool  
that will become the standard tool for projects' web sites. They call  
it CMS.]
>
> My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
> end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
> comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.

Well, not exactly. There is a tick box on uploaded files that says

o Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per theApache  
License §5)


> Can't that
> be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier to
> entry for those who legitimately want to help.

So there are three kinds of wikis that I know of here at Apache:
wikis that contain the web site contents (should be restricted to  
project committers)
wikis that have documentation and other useful user contributions  
(should be restricted to "known" users)
wikis that have random comments from users (no policy)

Just be aware that if a wiki is not restricted, spammers can attack it  
and the community needs to be constantly monitoring it for abuse.
>
> We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...

Please, no.

Craig
>
> Les
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com>  
> wrote:
>> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an  
>> easy way for
>> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth  
>> discussing how
>> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is  
>> around
>> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the  
>> documentation then
>> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>>
>> Here's the process I went through.
>> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
>> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
>> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
>> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
>> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
>> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>>
>> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>>
>> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and  
>> found
>> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.   
>> There's
>> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
>> community editing
>>
>> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of  
>> the site.
>>  BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to  
>> create an
>> account on their own wiki.
>> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One  
>> locked down
>> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.   
>> The open
>> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>>
>> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Alex Salazar
>> 571-276-7777
>> alex@alexsalazar.com

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: Issue with new contributors to the wiki

[Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>]

It is my understanding that only CLA contributors are allowed to
contribute to documentation to ensure their content is compatible
under the Apache 2.0 license.  I believe there is a 'cla' group in
confluence that represents all CLA users, and I'm pretty sure that
everyone in that group can edit our wiki pages.

Craig, Alan, (or anyone else who might know) - do you know if we're
allowed to have a 'completely open' space where anyone can post, even
those who haven't submitted a CLA?

My assumption is that it would be ok to do this.  For example, Jira
end-users aren't always CLA-cleared, but the ASF considers all issue
comments and patches to be 'contributions under ASL 2.0'.  Can't that
be the same for wiki edits?  It would certainly reduce the barrier to
entry for those who legitimately want to help.

We could always get clarification from legal@ if necessary...

Les

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alex Salazar <al...@alexsalazar.com> wrote:
> So I did a quick test on found that there doesn't seem to be an easy way for
> someone new to quickly edit a wiki page and I think its worth discussing how
> we should handle this.  The main reason I see this as a problem is around
> documentation.  If the community at large can't touch the documentation then
> it's left solely to the few committers to create and improve.
>
> Here's the process I went through.
> 1. Cleared out all my cookies to remove my authorized identity
> 2. Navigated to the Developer Resources page
> 3. Click on the Confluence Wiki Space link
> 4. When prompted I registered as a new user to confluence
> 5. Navigated to the Apache Shiro project
> 6. Tried to Edit a page
>
> Basically, no Edit or Add link shows up to me.
>
> I checked other Apache projects to see if there was a standard and found
> that I COULD add and edit pages for many of the other projects.  There's
> seems to be two different ways other projects handle free form
> community editing
>
> 1. What Cassandra does, where anyone can contribute to any part of the site.
>  BTW they don't use Confluence so if you test this you'll have to create an
> account on their own wiki.
> 2. What Felix does, where they have two Confluence spaces.  One locked down
> like ours and one complete open for full wiki style contribution.  The open
> space seems mostly focused on documentation.
>
> I think the Felix route is probably best.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Alex Salazar
> 571-276-7777
> alex@alexsalazar.com