You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Geoffrey Noakes <Ge...@symantec.com> on 2012/04/04 01:01:39 UTC
A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related
documentation for Apache's HTTPD
I am sending this to those on the Apache documentation list who have replied to emails related to SSL documentation (I am also copying the list to catch others that may be interested in this offer from Symantec/VeriSign). Here are a few comments I've seen about the existing Apache HTTPD documentation:
* "Most of ssl/ssl_faq.xml is rubbish"
* "both the FAQ and the howto docs could stand to be completely scrapped. Unfortunately, SSL is one of the topics about which we seem to know the least."
* "If the current arrangement of that doc or set of docs doesn't make sense, let's scrap it and start over. Most of that prose is a decade old, and was written by someone who, while a genius in the field, didn't have English as his first language."
* "I'm a bit of a stickler for deciding what the scope of our documentation is, and then not straying too far outside of that. The scope of our docs is the Apache HTTP Server and how to configure it. While the theory of SSL itself intersects with configuring mod_ssl, they are separate topics."
* "I think that the biggest problem in the past with the contributions has been twofold - one, the format made it difficult to integrate into the docs. (Translation: I'm basically lazy.) Two, many of us who are most active on the documentation are completely ignorant of SSL, and so feel unqualified to review any SSL content."
Symantec (previously VeriSign/Thawte/GeoTrust) is willing to take on - for free - the rewriting of the SSL-related content for Apache HTTPD, but it is important to us that this work ends up being useful and valuable to the Apache community, and is not just a make-work project. We will do this in a CA-independent manner - we do not seek any advantage here, we just want to make it easier for Apache HTTPD users to understand what they need to know when implementing SSL (and 100% of them will do so, at some point). We expect to leverage our skills around writing/publishing meaningful content, along with the rich set of experiences we have from working with so many Apache HTTPD users as customers (e.g., what problems end up in our Customer Support that could be easily be fixed with some Apache documentation?).
To that end, I will followup this email with a meeting request for Monday, April 23, at 1:00-1:30 pm Pacific. This will be a short conf call with any of those in Apache that have an interest in the SSL topic. The main goals for that call are:
* Understand the scope of the project
* Understand who from the Apache community we should work with
* Understand Apache's timeframe for getting the rewritten documentation done
Thanks...
Geoff
Geoffrey W. Noakes
Director, Business Development
Symantec Corporation
geoffrey_noakes@symantec.com<ma...@symantec.com>
+1-415-370-5980
RE: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by Tim Snyder <ts...@gsscomputer.com>.
Hello Rich,
I am not sure how I have been listed in the email strings
regarding Apache and your group. I have no idea how to respectfully remove
myself from future mail threads. Can you help please?
Regards,
Tim T Snyder
GSS Computer Technology
(540) 362-7686
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
_____
From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbowen@rcbowen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:39 AM
To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Cc: Richard Bowen; Igor Galic (i.galic@brainsware.org); William Rowe
(wrowe@apache.org); Daniel Gruno (rumble@cord.dk); Eric Covener
(covener@gmail.com); Rainer Jung (rainer.jung@kippdata.de); Jeff Barto;
Elizabeth Carlassare; Frank Agurto-Machado; Martin Thurmann
Subject: Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related
documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Geoffrey,
Thanks once again for your generous offer. As the author of every one of
those comments you quote below, I feel that I should probably respond. All
the ignorance expressed in those quotes is *mine*. However, the desire for
better docs is pretty universal on this list.
I would be glad to speak with you on the phone, but I can also tell you now
what I will tell you on the phone. Apache httpd (and the ASF in general) is
a do-ocracy, as one of our directors once said. So, yes, please, we would
love to see your documentation contributions, and would gladly incorporate
them into the docs. But the way to get that done is to just do it.
You have thus far sent us a couple of docs that were really good stuff, but
were either not httpd-related, or were at a technical level above my ability
to review and do the work of incorporating.
Here's what I'd like to see happen, personally.
* A review of the existing SSL sub-tree
(http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/) for both content and structure,
and a recommendation of how it could be better structures (ie, a T.O.C. for
that subtree)
* Prose for the various "chapters" in that section.
I would be delighted to assist with the process of getting those chapters
into correct XML format, although I expect that the examples of what's
already there would be a pretty good introduction to how to do that. But,
since I'm almost entirely ignorant of anything past the basics of creating
certificates and configuring httpd to use them, I can't actually rework
*content*. Other folks on the docs team would need to speak for themselves.
Each of the people you have CC'ed on this mailing got started on the
documentation by just doing it. I found something lacking in the docs and
sent changed prose for that section and someone committed it. Eventually I
was given commit rights to make those changes myself. William and Eric, at
different times, stepped up to be the project management committee chair, by
just doing it. Igor and Daniel, like myself, found parts of the
documentation lacking, and they stepped up to change them.
So my response to your offer is, and has been each time you've made it, a
resounding "Yes, please!" But I remain a little confused as to what you
envision coming out of a phone call. There is no you and us. There's just
us. We want you to be part of us. Please come join the party.
Awesome. Now that you're one of us, there's no "us" to reject or accept
"your" contribution. There's just us. Welcome to the documentation team.
Meanwhile, I've accepted your meeting invitation, and would be glad to speak
to you at that time, or sooner (I sent you my personal phone number a week
or two ago) if you prefer. I want to enable you to become part of the team,
rather than a third party sending us changes. But to rephrase what William
said, it would be the individuals on your team who would be part of the docs
team, not Symantec.
On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Geoffrey Noakes wrote:
I am sending this to those on the Apache documentation list who have replied
to emails related to SSL documentation (I am also copying the list to catch
others that may be interested in this offer from Symantec/VeriSign). Here
are a few comments I've seen about the existing Apache HTTPD documentation:
* "Most of ssl/ssl_faq.xml is rubbish"
* "both the FAQ and the howto docs could stand to be completely
scrapped. Unfortunately, SSL is one of the topics about which we seem to
know the least."
* "If the current arrangement of that doc or set of docs doesn't
make sense, let's scrap it and start over. Most of that prose is a decade
old, and was written by someone who, while a genius in the field, didn't
have English as his first language."
* "I'm a bit of a stickler for deciding what the scope of our
documentation is, and then not straying too far outside of that. The scope
of our docs is the Apache HTTP Server and how to configure it. While the
theory of SSL itself intersects with configuring mod_ssl, they are separate
topics."
* "I think that the biggest problem in the past with the
contributions has been twofold - one, the format made it difficult to
integrate into the docs. (Translation: I'm basically lazy.) Two, many of us
who are most active on the documentation are completely ignorant of SSL, and
so feel unqualified to review any SSL content."
Symantec (previously VeriSign/Thawte/GeoTrust) is willing to take on - for
free - the rewriting of the SSL-related content for Apache HTTPD, but it is
important to us that this work ends up being useful and valuable to the
Apache community, and is not just a make-work project. We will do this in a
CA-independent manner - we do not seek any advantage here, we just want to
make it easier for Apache HTTPD users to understand what they need to know
when implementing SSL (and 100% of them will do so, at some point). We
expect to leverage our skills around writing/publishing meaningful content,
along with the rich set of experiences we have from working with so many
Apache HTTPD users as customers (e.g., what problems end up in our Customer
Support that could be easily be fixed with some Apache documentation?).
To that end, I will followup this email with a meeting request for Monday,
April 23, at 1:00-1:30 pm Pacific. This will be a short conf call with any
of those in Apache that have an interest in the SSL topic. The main goals
for that call are:
* Understand the scope of the project
* Understand who from the Apache community we should work with
* Understand Apache's timeframe for getting the rewritten
documentation done
Thanks.
Geoff
Geoffrey W. Noakes
Director, Business Development
Symantec Corporation
geoffrey_noakes@symantec.com
+1-415-370-5980
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbowen@apache.org
Re: A review of SSL docs WAS Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_howto.html - The examples are
> still valid in today's world. I'm not sure if this particular doc is the
> place.... but having SSL proxy examples would also be helpful since all
> of those directives actually come from mod_ssl (and there are pointers
> in the proxy doco to mod_ssl). Thoughts?
Yes, that would be awesome.
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_intro.html - No rubbish here.
> I think this document is outstanding.
Excellent.
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_compat.html - This document
> may no longer be relevant. There have been so many changes since
> creation that I think this doc could be scrapped or repurposed to
> discuss integration issues only. Some examples would include notes about
> older browsers and supported levels of crypto, the emergence of TLS1.1,
> SNI and compatible browsers, OCSP, etc. I'm willing to take a whack at
> it and will write a bug to make myself do it in the coming days if the
> list agrees.
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html - Could use a
> general refreshing... most of the content isn't bad, but it could stand
> to be reorganized. Does anyone else kind of feel like this kind of
> document would be better served as a wiki article?
I don't much care where the doc is, as long as everything is interlinked so that someone doesn't have to go hunting for it. Having it in the doc, rather than in the wiki, has the advantage that it's there on an installed system and accessible without going out to the network.
> By the way, great job on these docs. SSL is a tough topic and I think
> there is more than enough content here to get someone going and keep
> them going for a while. It reads like an expert wrote it for fledgeling
> server admin and I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the assertions made
> about the content recently.
Those comments come entirely from my ignorance of the topic. My apologies.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbowen@apache.org
Re: A review of SSL docs WAS Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
>
>
> I think some of the assertions come from people who don't
> appreciate his style of writing - much of his original mod_rewrite
> documentation got butchered on a similar background.
>
>
>
> Yep. Our users are just begging for the good old days when the
> documentation started with a warning that they were about to be
> dreadfully confused, and then proceeded to call them silly for
> wanting it to do useful things. Ah, nostalgia.
Judging from the feedback on on Sander's poll, as well as
from recent experience on #httpd, people expect our docs to
be so bad or useless that they don't even bother looking,
and just ask for a howto.
Now, I'm not a big fan of howtos, or rather, for what generally
passes as howtos. But it would be really nice if our docs
covered the basic use-cases.
Much of that is already happening. One of the things were
I see room for improvement is
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/
The separation of topics is good, but they are sorted
alphabetically, which is not very useful.
A glaringly obvious gap is a soft-intro.
*) I'm an aspiring systems administrator, I've never run
a web server. Where do I start?
*) I know what a web server is, but I've never touched
Apache httpd, how do I get started?
*) I'm a PHP/Perl/Ruby/Python hacker. What do I need to
do to setup an environment like my admins will be running
oh, and maybe, fitting to the subject line:
*) How do I actually secure my site with HTTPS?
> --
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
> rbowen@apache.org
That's all folks o/~
i
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: A review of SSL docs WAS Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
> I think some of the assertions come from people who don't
> appreciate his style of writing - much of his original mod_rewrite
> documentation got butchered on a similar background.
Yep. Our users are just begging for the good old days when the documentation started with a warning that they were about to be dreadfully confused, and then proceeded to call them silly for wanting it to do useful things. Ah, nostalgia.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbowen@apache.org
Re: A review of SSL docs WAS Re: A proposal from Symantec for
cleaning up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 06:20:48PM -0500, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> I have reviewed these docs, Rich, and have some notes to provide. I'd
> like if other folks would have a look, too, so we can maybe get things
> in good shape sooner rather than later. I'm ready to move on a few
> things but would like to get consensus on two things below...
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_howto.html - The examples are
> still valid in today's world. I'm not sure if this particular doc is the
> place.... but having SSL proxy examples would also be helpful since all
> of those directives actually come from mod_ssl (and there are pointers
> in the proxy doco to mod_ssl). Thoughts?
I think this would be a good place for a proxy example. Looking for 2
seconds, I think the logging section could do with some more work.
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_intro.html - No rubbish here.
> I think this document is outstanding.
>
+1
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_compat.html - This document
> may no longer be relevant. There have been so many changes since
> creation that I think this doc could be scrapped or repurposed to
> discuss integration issues only. Some examples would include notes about
> older browsers and supported levels of crypto, the emergence of TLS1.1,
> SNI and compatible browsers, OCSP, etc. I'm willing to take a whack at
> it and will write a bug to make myself do it in the coming days if the
> list agrees.
What's there now is ancient and could be dropped.
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html - Could use a
> general refreshing... most of the content isn't bad, but it could stand
> to be reorganized. Does anyone else kind of feel like this kind of
> document would be better served as a wiki article?
>
Given the complexity of SSL in general, I prefer we keep the faq where
it is rather than abandon it on the wiki. But +1 to a cleanup.
>
>
> By the way, great job on these docs. SSL is a tough topic and I think
> there is more than enough content here to get someone going and keep
> them going for a while. It reads like an expert wrote it for fledgeling
> server admin and I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the assertions made
> about the content recently.
>
Agreed 100%. Most of the credit goes to Ralf S Engelschall who wrote
mod_ssl and most of the docs in question. Little has happened to them
since then. I think some of the assertions come from people who don't
appreciate his style of writing - much of his original mod_rewrite
documentation got butchered on a similar background.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
A review of SSL docs WAS Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning
up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 4/4/2012 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Here's what I'd like to see happen, personally.
>
> * A review of the existing SSL sub-tree
> (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/) for both content and
> structure, and a recommendation of how it could be better structures
> (ie, a T.O.C. for that subtree)
> * Prose for the various "chapters" in that section.
I have reviewed these docs, Rich, and have some notes to provide. I'd
like if other folks would have a look, too, so we can maybe get things
in good shape sooner rather than later. I'm ready to move on a few
things but would like to get consensus on two things below...
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_howto.html - The examples are
still valid in today's world. I'm not sure if this particular doc is the
place.... but having SSL proxy examples would also be helpful since all
of those directives actually come from mod_ssl (and there are pointers
in the proxy doco to mod_ssl). Thoughts?
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_intro.html - No rubbish here.
I think this document is outstanding.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_compat.html - This document
may no longer be relevant. There have been so many changes since
creation that I think this doc could be scrapped or repurposed to
discuss integration issues only. Some examples would include notes about
older browsers and supported levels of crypto, the emergence of TLS1.1,
SNI and compatible browsers, OCSP, etc. I'm willing to take a whack at
it and will write a bug to make myself do it in the coming days if the
list agrees.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html - Could use a
general refreshing... most of the content isn't bad, but it could stand
to be reorganized. Does anyone else kind of feel like this kind of
document would be better served as a wiki article?
By the way, great job on these docs. SSL is a tough topic and I think
there is more than enough content here to get someone going and keep
them going for a while. It reads like an expert wrote it for fledgeling
server admin and I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the assertions made
about the content recently.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
Geoffrey,
Thanks once again for your generous offer. As the author of every one of those comments you quote below, I feel that I should probably respond. All the ignorance expressed in those quotes is *mine*. However, the desire for better docs is pretty universal on this list.
I would be glad to speak with you on the phone, but I can also tell you now what I will tell you on the phone. Apache httpd (and the ASF in general) is a do-ocracy, as one of our directors once said. So, yes, please, we would love to see your documentation contributions, and would gladly incorporate them into the docs. But the way to get that done is to just do it.
You have thus far sent us a couple of docs that were really good stuff, but were either not httpd-related, or were at a technical level above my ability to review and do the work of incorporating.
Here's what I'd like to see happen, personally.
* A review of the existing SSL sub-tree (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/) for both content and structure, and a recommendation of how it could be better structures (ie, a T.O.C. for that subtree)
* Prose for the various "chapters" in that section.
I would be delighted to assist with the process of getting those chapters into correct XML format, although I expect that the examples of what's already there would be a pretty good introduction to how to do that. But, since I'm almost entirely ignorant of anything past the basics of creating certificates and configuring httpd to use them, I can't actually rework *content*. Other folks on the docs team would need to speak for themselves.
Each of the people you have CC'ed on this mailing got started on the documentation by just doing it. I found something lacking in the docs and sent changed prose for that section and someone committed it. Eventually I was given commit rights to make those changes myself. William and Eric, at different times, stepped up to be the project management committee chair, by just doing it. Igor and Daniel, like myself, found parts of the documentation lacking, and they stepped up to change them.
So my response to your offer is, and has been each time you've made it, a resounding "Yes, please!" But I remain a little confused as to what you envision coming out of a phone call. There is no you and us. There's just us. We want you to be part of us. Please come join the party.
Awesome. Now that you're one of us, there's no "us" to reject or accept "your" contribution. There's just us. Welcome to the documentation team.
Meanwhile, I've accepted your meeting invitation, and would be glad to speak to you at that time, or sooner (I sent you my personal phone number a week or two ago) if you prefer. I want to enable you to become part of the team, rather than a third party sending us changes. But to rephrase what William said, it would be the individuals on your team who would be part of the docs team, not Symantec.
On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Geoffrey Noakes wrote:
> I am sending this to those on the Apache documentation list who have replied to emails related to SSL documentation (I am also copying the list to catch others that may be interested in this offer from Symantec/VeriSign). Here are a few comments I’ve seen about the existing Apache HTTPD documentation:
> · “Most of ssl/ssl_faq.xml is rubbish”
> · “both the FAQ and the howto docs could stand to be completely scrapped. Unfortunately, SSL is one of the topics about which we seem to know the least.”
> · “If the current arrangement of that doc or set of docs doesn't make sense, let's scrap it and start over. Most of that prose is a decade old, and was written by someone who, while a genius in the field, didn't have English as his first language.”
> · “I'm a bit of a stickler for deciding what the scope of our documentation is, and then not straying too far outside of that. The scope of our docs is the Apache HTTP Server and how to configure it. While the theory of SSL itself intersects with configuring mod_ssl, they are separate topics.”
> · “I think that the biggest problem in the past with the contributions has been twofold - one, the format made it difficult to integrate into the docs. (Translation: I'm basically lazy.) Two, many of us who are most active on the documentation are completely ignorant of SSL, and so feel unqualified to review any SSL content.”
>
> Symantec (previously VeriSign/Thawte/GeoTrust) is willing to take on – for free – the rewriting of the SSL-related content for Apache HTTPD, but it is important to us that this work ends up being useful and valuable to the Apache community, and is not just a make-work project. We will do this in a CA-independent manner – we do not seek any advantage here, we just want to make it easier for Apache HTTPD users to understand what they need to know when implementing SSL (and 100% of them will do so, at some point). We expect to leverage our skills around writing/publishing meaningful content, along with the rich set of experiences we have from working with so many Apache HTTPD users as customers (e.g., what problems end up in our Customer Support that could be easily be fixed with some Apache documentation?).
>
> To that end, I will followup this email with a meeting request for Monday, April 23, at 1:00-1:30 pm Pacific. This will be a short conf call with any of those in Apache that have an interest in the SSL topic. The main goals for that call are:
> · Understand the scope of the project
> · Understand who from the Apache community we should work with
> · Understand Apache’s timeframe for getting the rewritten documentation done
>
> Thanks…
>
> Geoff
> Geoffrey W. Noakes
> Director, Business Development
> Symantec Corporation
> geoffrey_noakes@symantec.com
> +1-415-370-5980
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbowen@apache.org
Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related documentation
for Apache's HTTPD
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 4/3/2012 6:01 PM, Geoffrey Noakes wrote:
>
> Symantec (previously VeriSign/Thawte/GeoTrust) is willing to take on – for free – the
> rewriting of the SSL-related content for Apache HTTPD, but it is important to us that this
> work ends up being useful and valuable to the Apache community, and is not just a
> make-work project. We will do this in a CA-independent manner – we do not seek any
> advantage here, we just want to make it easier for Apache HTTPD users to understand what
> they need to know when implementing SSL (and 100% of them will do so, at some point). We
> expect to leverage our skills around writing/publishing meaningful content, along with the
> rich set of experiences we have from working with so many Apache HTTPD users as customers
> (e.g., what problems end up in our Customer Support that could be easily be fixed with
> some Apache documentation?).
Geoffrey,
thank you for your offer. There is no part of our documentation which couldn't
benefit from closer attention, rewriting and even refactoring followed up by peer
review/acceptance cycle. That is a good idea.
This whole conversation jumps the shark when we begin suggesting "Corp Co will..."
and I'm afraid you will not have a positive response from this specific line of
inquiry. The docs team welcomes documentation authors. The docs team is not
soliciting a writing shop, editing shop or publishing shop.
Corporations are appreciated by the foundation, but not respected. No corp will
ever be a project committer. No corp will ever be credited as an author. The
ASF is entirely about the contributions of specific authors (code, and docs) and
their contributions to the project's ecosystem. This is just one reason why some
incubation efforts at the ASF may fail, a simple culture war.
The way this project works is write a patch. Make it small enough for review.
Post it to docs@ (or dev@ or the issue tracker or the wiki, but turn right back
around and point to it in a note to docs@), respond to criticism, and the more
reviewable it is, the quicker it can be reviewed and potentially accepted. As
a given author becomes trusted, and gains experience in interating with the team,
the faster their patches are accepted. When that individuals patches don't need
editing before commit and are too numerous, that individual inevitably gains the
commit karma of their own.
So you are right, doing a 360% review without acceptance is wildly frustrating
and probably not worth doing without committed reviewers. Ask for specific offers
of review from the team so you know several will review the work. Do this in some
incremental and measurable phases which the team can follow in their own limited
volunteer time commitments.
I think we all respect that your crew seeks to be neutral in offering good SSL
guidance to the community. But the very tone of your note suggested to me some
request for a banner "This documentation donated by Symantec, your trusted source
for SSL cryptographic solutions." Which might just well be fact for some of the
readers, but would not be entertained. The collective work of Apache httpd is
wildly diverse and represents hundreds of employed and volunteer contributors
from hundreds of companies.
The mark of a successful committer is that they have enough pride in their own
contribution that they might continue to maintain and improve it, even after the
company who paid them as they wrote it is no longer their employer. Sorry if
we are all coming at this from different perspectives, but the project has a very
rich history of leaving their employers at the side door when they come in to
collaborate with their 'competitors'. Our competition here are colleagues.
If an author steps forward, they will find reviewers, I've read that commitment
on this list several times in the past month.
Respectfully yours,
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org