You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2003/01/24 04:57:41 UTC
RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
[Moved from infrastructure@ at DWvG's suggestion]
> I continue to feel a bit disenchanted with the group of folks "I don't
> see need for this, -1" for various efforts, where non-participation
> would be the most appropriate (IMHO) avenue of "protest".
Excuse me, Andrew, but you *are* aware that except for a technical issue
a -1 is non-binding, right? People are just casting their votes for or
against. What is the problem with someone saying that they disagree with
your view? Why is that obstructionist? This is a Community. If the
majority disagrees with you, is that obstructionist?
You did a good job of getting a wiki going here, so you can hardly argue
that everyone is trying to preserve the status quo. But the issue of blogs
and personal pages has come up multiple times in the few months that I have
had Committer status, so I am sure that you have seen the arguments before
now.
--- Noel
RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
[CC'd Andy]
Noel,
Andy unsubbed (or at least announced he would) from this list some time ago.
I don't know if he resubbed, so if you directing comments directly at him,
CC him.
Sander
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:58 AM
> To: community@apache.org
> Subject: RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
>
>
> [Moved from infrastructure@ at DWvG's suggestion]
>
> > I continue to feel a bit disenchanted with the group of folks "I don't
> > see need for this, -1" for various efforts, where non-participation
> > would be the most appropriate (IMHO) avenue of "protest".
>
> Excuse me, Andrew, but you *are* aware that except for a technical issue
> a -1 is non-binding, right? People are just casting their votes for or
> against. What is the problem with someone saying that they disagree with
> your view? Why is that obstructionist? This is a Community. If the
> majority disagrees with you, is that obstructionist?
>
> You did a good job of getting a wiki going here, so you can hardly argue
> that everyone is trying to preserve the status quo. But the issue of blogs
> and personal pages has come up multiple times in the few months that I have
> had Committer status, so I am sure that you have seen the arguments before
> now.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
Re: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
Posted by Erik Abele <er...@apache.org>.
Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>
> For those of us that are not on infrastructure@, what's the summary thus
> far? Is it just the obvious which can be gleaned from the above, ie Andy
> proposed blog software installed on an apache.org machine and someone
> -1'ed it, or was it merely a page linking to blogs?
>
> Just curious what we're talking about here.
>
Hi Rich,
there was a controverse discussion about installing a blogging software (e.g. movabletype, pyrite, bloxsom, roller ...) on cvs.apache.org or apache.org with the purpose to support *private* weblogging.
The different topics were pretty mixed up and included questions on possible software solutions, their licenses (especially MT's), archiving possibilities, the purpose of private weblogs, a possible brand damage and if infrastructure@ is the right list to dicuss this...
Andrew later mentioned the possibility to use weblogs for project news instead of private blogs.
All in all, up to now there is no final decision; just a bunch of -1 and +1, but I didn't count them :-)
cheers,
Erik
Re: Weblogs and Obstructionism
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:25:47AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>...
> A project site, such as James or Jakarta, could integrate their SubWiki with
> the rest of their SVN-backed web content. I am expecting that Greg and the
> rest of the Subversion folks will be ensuring that unchanged DAV content,
> such as a News page, is capable of being served by httpd at quite close to
> static content speed.
We've gotta yank that data out of a Berkeley DB. Of course, maybe it is
sitting in a shared memory segment, or the OS cache, or whatever, but it
will take a bit of time.
That said: we *do* support etags which can optimize GET performance. And
depending on how you ask for the content, it can be *very* cacheable. In
particular, it is possible that checkouts can cache at a local [caching]
proxy, enabling the guy sitting next to you to fetch his checkout at LAN
speed.
And last, but not least, you could put a caching reverse proxy in front of
Subversion. That would seriously offload the server. And if some Smart Guys
wrote a post-commit script to issue an ICP request to that proxy, then you
could keep the proxy up to date on all the content.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Costin,
> Consensus or at least a majority :-)
I believe he was using the common dictionary definition, not refering to
unanimity.
> [agregating blogs ( or subsets ) from the apache community]
> is a very different and IMO more important issue.
> Putting this information togheter and making it accessible
> may be _very_ important for the community and apache projects.
One of my suggestions was that Andrew (and others) should submit a list of
features that Greg might add to SubWiki. Greg expressed interest in adding
such features as people think useful.
RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Costin Manolache wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> Consensus or at least a majority :-) After all discussion, I think that's
> what has to happen - someone who wants this to happen should call for a
> vote, otherwise we'll never know.
>
> Probably it would be good to split this into separate issues:
> - private blogs for commiters
> - agregating blogs ( or subsets ) from the apache community.
+1. The latter sounds very useful, the former something that Apache don't
need to offer, there are plenty of places to get a private blog.
> The second is a very different and IMO more important issue. I feel
> a lot of content and information will move from mailing lists to blogs.
> It is already happening - with good and bad effects ( I'll probably
> post a blog about this :-). Putting this information togheter and
> making it accessible may be _very_ important for the community
> and apache projects.
Aarggh. Without including the url to your blog?? :)
[http://weblogs.flamefew.net/bayard/]
Hen
RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Thus, the ASF is governed by the community it most directly serves
> -- the people collaborating within its projects.
>
> That is the guiding principle for all resources spend. That is the spirit
> which the board has to make sure we act in. If this groups can come to
> consensus with regard to blogs; and that consensus fits in the above; then
> I would not expect the board to even twitch :-) and infrastructure will
> set up wathever needed.
Consensus or at least a majority :-) After all discussion, I think that's
what has to happen - someone who wants this to happen should call for a
vote, otherwise we'll never know.
Probably it would be good to split this into separate issues:
- private blogs for commiters
- agregating blogs ( or subsets ) from the apache community.
The second is a very different and IMO more important issue. I feel
a lot of content and information will move from mailing lists to blogs.
It is already happening - with good and bad effects ( I'll probably
post a blog about this :-). Putting this information togheter and
making it accessible may be _very_ important for the community
and apache projects.
I don't know how difficult is this - but blogs may become at
least as important as the mailing lists.
Costin
RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
> For those of us that are not on infrastructure@, what's the summary thus
> far? Is it just the obvious which can be gleaned from the above, ie Andy
> proposed blog software installed on an apache.org machine and someone
> -1'ed it, or was it merely a page linking to blogs?
Essentially infrastructure will install and maintain blogging code:
-> When a certain project requests it, through their PMC,
for a certain goal; and we do not hear any negative
mumblings from board or see issues with management
AND
-> it is technically feasable and we clearly have the
volunteer and infrastructure to create and maintain
the requested/required security and service level.
Now for personal blogs, non-ASF stuff, or stuff which does not fit in the
coding/projects managed by PMC's (and is clearly under a charter, PMC
oversight and control) we will not do anything until we hear from the
board (or some other entity which is to provide oversight).
The board will most likely not do anything until this list, community@
demonstrates some very clear consensus as to what the right thing is to do
in this area and what the policy for such should be.
As a guide line; the general charter of the ASF is:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/
The Apache Software Foundation exists to provide organizational,
legal, and financial support for the Apache open-source software
projects. Formerly known as the Apache Group, the Foundation has
been incorporated as a membership-based, not-for-profit
corporation in order to ensure that the Apache projects continue
to exist beyond the participation of individual volunteers, to
enable contributions of intellectual property and funds on a sound
basis, and to provide a vehicle for limiting legal exposure while
participating in open-source software projects.
...cut...
Thus, the ASF is governed by the community it most directly serves
-- the people collaborating within its projects.
That is the guiding principle for all resources spend. That is the spirit
which the board has to make sure we act in. If this groups can come to
consensus with regard to blogs; and that consensus fits in the above; then
I would not expect the board to even twitch :-) and infrastructure will
set up wathever needed.
Dw
RE: Weblogs and Obstructionism WAS: Re: weblogs on apache.org
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> [Moved from infrastructure@ at DWvG's suggestion]
>
> > I continue to feel a bit disenchanted with the group of folks "I don't
> > see need for this, -1" for various efforts, where non-participation
> > would be the most appropriate (IMHO) avenue of "protest".
>
> Excuse me, Andrew, but you *are* aware that except for a technical issue
> a -1 is non-binding, right? People are just casting their votes for or
> against. What is the problem with someone saying that they disagree with
> your view? Why is that obstructionist? This is a Community. If the
> majority disagrees with you, is that obstructionist?
>
> You did a good job of getting a wiki going here, so you can hardly argue
> that everyone is trying to preserve the status quo. But the issue of blogs
> and personal pages has come up multiple times in the few months that I have
> had Committer status, so I am sure that you have seen the arguments before
> now.
For those of us that are not on infrastructure@, what's the summary thus
far? Is it just the obvious which can be gleaned from the above, ie Andy
proposed blog software installed on an apache.org machine and someone
- -1'ed it, or was it merely a page linking to blogs?
Just curious what we're talking about here.
- --
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the sky on laughter-silvered wings
--High Flight (John Gillespie Magee)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6
iD8DBQE+MyJuXP03+sx4yJMRAnvdAJ91TzBbPojqAg8JVfADq5FHRcQBAQCg9oij
9jLkqKEgZqvLTOScuqS6A0g=
=kcDX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----