Moving content between CWiki and MWiki (was Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours !!!!)

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

>
> Da: janI 
...
>Oggetto: Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours !!!!
> 
>@pedro: thx, that can save quite some time if it works.
>
>@dave: nice to know that you are admin, so you can help provide e.g. a list
>of pages.
>

Two things here:

The conversor is one way only: to CWiki. Conversion is known to be imperfect
and a lot of content would be lost. OTOH, it is also understood that a lot of
MWiki content is obsolete and needs to be cleaned out anyway.

For conversion of the math stuff the documentation of the plugin states that
CWiki could be helped by the use of a latex plugin.


>We had a discussion a while ago about moving the cwiki content, once the
>mwiki was upgraded, so I guess now is about the right time to take a
>decision. I will initiate that shortly.
>

From a licensing perspective the MWiki content is a can of worms.
This may or may not be important as this is not included in releases
but the general consensus was to keep the MWiki content contained
and only accept ALv2 content from now on.

There is also a huge -1 in the current MWiki for me: if MWiki is
here to stay ldap access must be enabled so that committers
have access to it without opening a new account.

Just thought I'd point those things out :)

Pedro.

Re: Moving content between CWiki and MWiki (was Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours !!!!)

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

>________________________________
> Da: janI 

>
>On 26 December 2012 16:47, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
...
>
>>We do have licensing issues with the content of both the wiki and the website.
>>If you check the lengthy discussion we had about it you will find that the
>>documentation is mostly licensed under PDL. As I said it's a can of worms,
>>but it doesn't mean we won't have to open it.
>>
>Now I get it, I thought you meant the mediawiki general license. 
> There are for sure bigger issues with the general content, also according to
> our ICLA we cannot simply copy it.
> 

The issue is the SUN contribution agreement for that content was that was
under "Public Documentation License" by default, or alternatively under PD
or some CC- copyleft.

We can probably get some of that stuff relicensed but this is not usually
covered by a SGA. It's a can of worms :(.


>>
>>It limits my ability to contribute to the MediaWiki content as it seems the wiki
>>is unconnected to the rest of Apache. I think it's something that can be solved:
>>my understanding is that accepting LDAP doesn't exclude volunteers from using
>>the existing authentication accounts.
>>
>well I am right now doing my best to connect it better to apache, LDAP is one
> small step, which I am actually sitting right now and reading about. Other things
> are the monitoring and other infra stuff, where I help out a bit. 
>

Let me clarify this: you are doing a GREAT job. Updating the MediaWiki software
was indeed a requirement for infra@ if MWiki is going to stay.

I personally don't want to spend holiday time thinking about documentation or MWikis :).

Keep up the good work!

Pedro.

Re: Moving content between CWiki and MWiki (was Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours !!!!)

[janI <ja...@apache.org>]

On 26 December 2012 16:47, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> > Da: janI
>
> >>
> >>  From a licensing perspective the MWiki content is a can of worms.
> >>  This may or may not be important as this is not included in releases
> >>  but the general consensus was to keep the MWiki content contained
> >>  and only accept ALv2 content from now on.
> >>
> >
> > We should have put our ALv2 license in place long time ago, there is a
> > separate policy page for that. That has not happened and therefore all
> > content is totally without any license (except of course those that have
> > explecitly written something). Please do not mix the mediawiki license
> with
> > the contents license.
> >
>
> The MediaWiki software license is not a problem, just like the CWiki
> license
> is not a problem.
>
correct !

>
> We do have licensing issues with the content of both the wiki and the
> website.
> If you check the lengthy discussion we had about it you will find that the
> documentation is mostly licensed under PDL. As I said it's a can of worms,
> but it doesn't mean we won't have to open it.
>
Now I get it, I thought you meant the mediawiki general license. There are
for sure bigger issues with the general content, also according to our ICLA
we cannot simply copy it.


>
>
> > As far as I can judge (but I am no expert) mwiki provides more facilities
> > than cwiki in respect of graphics, and in the discussion (see earlier
> mail
> > thread) everybody seemed convinced that mwiki was the future and cwiki
> was
> > old (I cannot judge those statements).
> >
>
> Absolutely.  MediaWiki is superior to CWiki,
>
> >
> >>
> >>  There is also a huge -1 in the current MWiki for me: if MWiki is
> >>  here to stay ldap access must be enabled so that committers
> >>  have access to it without opening a new account.
> >>
> > I cannot agree more about ldap access...but I actually had the same
> problem
> > with cwiki, we are not all committers !!
> >
> > When I consider the user base is about 6.200 (after spam removal) and
> only
> > a small fraction are committers, I would place ldap as important, but a
> > reason for a -1.
> >
>
> It limits my ability to contribute to the MediaWiki content as it seems
> the wiki
> is unconnected to the rest of Apache. I think it's something that can be
> solved:
> my understanding is that accepting LDAP doesn't exclude volunteers from
> using
> the existing authentication accounts.
>
well I am right now doing my best to connect it better to apache, LDAP is
one small step, which I am actually sitting right now and reading about.
Other things are the monitoring and other infra stuff, where I help out a
bit.

If you have other ideas how to connect mwiki and apache, then I am all open
ears (or more correctly eyes).

>
> It's a -1 for me but I am not saying it's binding.
>
In Denmark we once had a prime minister who said "you have a stand until
you make a new one" :-) and as I said I am just listening,

>
> Pedro.
>

Re: Moving content between CWiki and MWiki (was Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours !!!!)

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

> Da: janI 

>> 
>>  From a licensing perspective the MWiki content is a can of worms.
>>  This may or may not be important as this is not included in releases
>>  but the general consensus was to keep the MWiki content contained
>>  and only accept ALv2 content from now on.
>> 
> 
> We should have put our ALv2 license in place long time ago, there is a
> separate policy page for that. That has not happened and therefore all
> content is totally without any license (except of course those that have
> explecitly written something). Please do not mix the mediawiki license with
> the contents license.
>

The MediaWiki software license is not a problem, just like the CWiki license
is not a problem.

We do have licensing issues with the content of both the wiki and the website.
If you check the lengthy discussion we had about it you will find that the
documentation is mostly licensed under PDL. As I said it's a can of worms,
but it doesn't mean we won't have to open it.

  
> As far as I can judge (but I am no expert) mwiki provides more facilities
> than cwiki in respect of graphics, and in the discussion (see earlier mail
> thread) everybody seemed convinced that mwiki was the future and cwiki was
> old (I cannot judge those statements).
> 

Absolutely.  MediaWiki is superior to CWiki,

> 
>> 
>>  There is also a huge -1 in the current MWiki for me: if MWiki is
>>  here to stay ldap access must be enabled so that committers
>>  have access to it without opening a new account.
>> 
> I cannot agree more about ldap access...but I actually had the same problem
> with cwiki, we are not all committers !!
> 
> When I consider the user base is about 6.200 (after spam removal) and only
> a small fraction are committers, I would place ldap as important, but a
> reason for a -1.
> 

It limits my ability to contribute to the MediaWiki content as it seems the wiki
is unconnected to the rest of Apache. I think it's something that can be solved:
my understanding is that accepting LDAP doesn't exclude volunteers from using
the existing authentication accounts.

It's a -1 for me but I am not saying it's binding.

Pedro.

Re: Moving content between CWiki and MWiki (was Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours !!!!)

[janI <ja...@apache.org>]

On 26 December 2012 16:12, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> >
> > Da: janI
> ...
> >Oggetto: Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of
> hours !!!!
> >
> >@pedro: thx, that can save quite some time if it works.
> >
> >@dave: nice to know that you are admin, so you can help provide e.g. a
> list
> >of pages.
> >
>
> Two things here:
>
> The conversor is one way only: to CWiki. Conversion is known to be
> imperfect
> and a lot of content would be lost. OTOH, it is also understood that a lot
> of
> MWiki content is obsolete and needs to be cleaned out anyway.
>
ok so we cannot use this if we go the mwiki way.

>
> For conversion of the math stuff the documentation of the plugin states
> that
> CWiki could be helped by the use of a latex plugin.
>
>
> >We had a discussion a while ago about moving the cwiki content, once the
> >mwiki was upgraded, so I guess now is about the right time to take a
> >decision. I will initiate that shortly.
> >
>
> From a licensing perspective the MWiki content is a can of worms.
> This may or may not be important as this is not included in releases
> but the general consensus was to keep the MWiki content contained
> and only accept ALv2 content from now on.
>

We should have put our ALv2 license in place long time ago, there is a
separate policy page for that. That has not happened and therefore all
content is totally without any license (except of course those that have
explecitly written something). Please do not mix the mediawiki license with
the contents license.

As far as I can judge (but I am no expert) mwiki provides more facilities
than cwiki in respect of graphics, and in the discussion (see earlier mail
thread) everybody seemed convinced that mwiki was the future and cwiki was
old (I cannot judge those statements).


>
> There is also a huge -1 in the current MWiki for me: if MWiki is
> here to stay ldap access must be enabled so that committers
> have access to it without opening a new account.
>
I cannot agree more about ldap access...but I actually had the same problem
with cwiki, we are not all committers !!

When I consider the user base is about 6.200 (after spam removal) and only
a small fraction are committers, I would place ldap as important, but a
reason for a -1.



>
> Just thought I'd point those things out :)
>
It is good to hear opinions that is why we have the mailing lists. As for
me I just maintain it and are no huge contributor, so in my opinion let
those who makes lots of content decide.

Jan I.


>
> Pedro.
>
>