You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by "B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com> on 2002/12/01 22:13:26 UTC
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
"Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> writes:
> >"These are the homepages and voices of the Apache Community. These
> >pages represent the committers and members of the Apache Software
> >Foundation."
> >
> >Which is simply not the case if not all committers and members are represent
> ed
> >on there.
> >
>
> Lets find a nit and pick it.
>
> "These are the homepages and voices of the Apache Community. These
> pages represent the committers and members of the Apache Software
> - Foundation."
>
> + Foundation whom choose to express themselves here."
I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage
used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de
facto representation of the face of the Apache community.
FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community
around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely
self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site
somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this.
-Fitz
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Ben Hyde wrote:
>
> On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 04:28 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna.
>
>
> huh? (and yes I know what the congress of vienna was).
conservatives sat on the left and the more liberal sat on the left
(hence where the terms "right" and "left" became associated with
conservative versus liberal). The two sides to every issue as of late
keep bringing this to mind and the very issue pointed to below.
>
>> It keeps coming back down to this:
>> open (we sit on the left)
>> closed (you sit on the right)
>>
>> and it really keeps being that simple.
>
>
> Exactly how does this have anything what so ever to do with open vs.
> closed?
Whether one wants the community closely associated with the people in
it, and make those people more accessible to the world at large. It has
everything to do with open versus closed. It has everything to do with
whether this looks like a closed geek society (the star chamber) or an
open community. And the "you shouldn't because I'm too busy too" and
"your visibility detracts from mine" is a very different viewpoint on
how a community should operate....
(never been a fan of zero sum ecnomics anyhow)
-Andy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 04:28 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna.
huh? (and yes I know what the congress of vienna was).
> It keeps coming back down to this:
> open (we sit on the left)
> closed (you sit on the right)
>
> and it really keeps being that simple.
Exactly how does this have anything what so ever to do with open vs.
closed?
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 12:55 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[long quote omitted]
Please refrain from copying every line of a post in your reply.
It is best to only quote what you are replying to.
-aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> To me it seems we are trying to solve two problems here:
>
> 1) A place to put homepages and personal content, including
> (but not limited to) ASF-related activities and project proposals,
> as well as individual interests.
>
> 2) A catalog of the people representing the ASF "community".
>
>
> IMO the only time #1 should be hosted on an apache.org
> site is if for some reason the person can not find other space
> to host the content. I am perfectly fine with #2, as we have
> already been doing so with contributor pages for the various
> projects (I happen to think this is more effective than a
> simple list of all 600 or so committers.)
#1 is already there.
>
> [more comments below]
>
> On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 06:47 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>
>>> That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think
>>> that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little
>>> "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that
>>> project"
>>> pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book.
>>
>>
>> First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox.
>>
>> Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at
>> http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you
>> think should be on and off limits?
>
>
> This is an excellent example of what can go right if we host
> people's personal homepages on apache.org. Do you believe
> that every other page we host will turn out the same way?
>
>> Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from
>> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which,
>> to be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained
>> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly
>> could be categorized as
>> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ).
>>
>> What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and
>> specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus.
>>
>> For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html .
>> Now let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each
>> committer to specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single
>> hypertext link to the page of their choice. As has been pointed out,
>> this is not materially different that what has been in place on
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time.
>
>
> I have no problem with this, as long as the individual pages are
> hosted elsewhere than the apache.org namespace.
>
> Note that I didn't say "hosted elsewhere than on the ASF infrastructure".
> As long as the people who own the hardware and pay the bandwidth bills
> don't mind*, I would have no problem with a vhost entry for, say
> www.friendsofapache.com or www.peopleofapache.com or even
> www.amiapacheornot.com (tongue-in-cheek :), as long as it
> doesn't imply that it is officially ASF.
>
> *I considered offering hosting space for ASF people who have no other
> place to put their stuff, but I don't think I have sufficient bandwidth
> or reliable-enough hardware...
>
> Although, I believe per-project listings of contributors with offsite
> links is more effective, I won't move to block a flat list of
> every ASF-community member.
>
>> If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if
>> any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be
>> enforced. Should the guidelines be different for on-site and
>> off-site content?
>
>
> As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone
> makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings.
> This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with should
> probably have the same level of oversight.
>
>> I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but
>> would be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus.
>>
>> Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals
>> along these lines?
>
>
> -aaron
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> Now, I wonder: why don't we use the 'community' CVS repository for
> personal pages? (or create another "community-pages" repository)
> what do you think?
In general, it seems to me that an ASF wide repository is less likely to
be actively monitored, maintained, and policed than a set of community
specific repositories.
Personally, what I would like to see is pages like
http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/who.html lead the way, and the results get
aggregated up into pages like http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/committers.html .
Also, putting the pages themselves in cvs also means that they must be
statically rendered. While that might be OK for some, it would also
exclude pages such as
http://outerthought.net/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=StevenNoels .
Trust me, the results can still be spidered and the results put in a
form suitable for input into your
http://www.apache.org/~stefano/community/ page.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone
> makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings.
> This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with should
> probably have the same level of oversight.
Justin has a very valid point: without proper oversight people might
abuse their pages without even knowing they are doing it.
Unfortunately, you fail to see that some of us work on so many different
projects that it will be a major PITA to scatter our bio information all
over the place. It would be *much* easier to link directly to our
asf-related personal page.
[yeah, let's call it 'ASF personal page' rather than home page so that
nobody freaks out]
Now, I wonder: why don't we use the 'community' CVS repository for
personal pages? (or create another "community-pages" repository)
By doing so we could:
1) have proper oversight because all diffs are sent on a cvs-related
mail list like all the other CVS repositories (we could send those diffs
here)
2) we are future-compatible in case the apache infrastructure is able
to remove the need for account on cvs.apache.org
3) it is easier for non-unix committers to setup their pages since
they already have to know how to use CVS.
4) all personal information about everybody is kept in one place, so
it's easy for infrastructure people to keep an eye on disk usage for
those personally-related information
5) community personal pages don't conflict with existing users pages
Possible objections:
a) that community cvs module might become huge and I don't want to
checkout the whole thing.
answer: "cvs checkout community/pages/$user/" will download only your
stuff.
what do you think?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
To me it seems we are trying to solve two problems here:
1) A place to put homepages and personal content, including
(but not limited to) ASF-related activities and project proposals,
as well as individual interests.
2) A catalog of the people representing the ASF "community".
IMO the only time #1 should be hosted on an apache.org
site is if for some reason the person can not find other space
to host the content. I am perfectly fine with #2, as we have
already been doing so with contributor pages for the various
projects (I happen to think this is more effective than a
simple list of all 600 or so committers.)
[more comments below]
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 06:47 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>> That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think
>> that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short
>> little
>> "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that
>> project"
>> pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book.
>
> First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox.
>
> Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at
> http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you
> think should be on and off limits?
This is an excellent example of what can go right if we host
people's personal homepages on apache.org. Do you believe
that every other page we host will turn out the same way?
> Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which, to
> be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly
> could be categorized as
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ).
>
> What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and
> specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus.
>
> For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . Now
> let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each committer
> to specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single hypertext
> link to the page of their choice. As has been pointed out, this is
> not materially different that what has been in place on
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time.
I have no problem with this, as long as the individual pages are
hosted elsewhere than the apache.org namespace.
Note that I didn't say "hosted elsewhere than on the ASF
infrastructure".
As long as the people who own the hardware and pay the bandwidth bills
don't mind*, I would have no problem with a vhost entry for, say
www.friendsofapache.com or www.peopleofapache.com or even
www.amiapacheornot.com (tongue-in-cheek :), as long as it
doesn't imply that it is officially ASF.
*I considered offering hosting space for ASF people who have no other
place to put their stuff, but I don't think I have sufficient bandwidth
or reliable-enough hardware...
Although, I believe per-project listings of contributors with offsite
links is more effective, I won't move to block a flat list of
every ASF-community member.
> If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if
> any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be
> enforced. Should the guidelines be different for on-site and off-site
> content?
As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone
makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings.
This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with
should
probably have the same level of oversight.
> I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but would
> be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus.
>
> Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals
> along these lines?
-aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think
> that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little
> "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project"
> pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book.
First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox.
Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at
http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you
think should be on and off limits?
Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which, to
be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly could
be categorized as http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ).
What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and
specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus.
For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . Now
let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each committer to
specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single hypertext link to
the page of their choice. As has been pointed out, this is not
materially different that what has been in place on
http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time.
If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if
any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be enforced.
Should the guidelines be different for on-site and off-site content?
I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but would
be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus.
Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals along
these lines?
- Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think
> that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little
> "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project"
> pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book.
No one has proposed those be removed.
>
>> I'm interested in bringing others closer to the community whom
>> currently do regard it as some kind of "star chamber". .(I'd say
>> thats the prevalent view) I notice a lot of folks share these views,
>> but I can tell there is a whole other side whom hold the exact
>> opposite opinion.
>
>
> If having a homepage on apache.org becomes one of the valued privileges
> one gets after being accepted into the ASF, then we will only be
> replacing
> the star chamber with an ivory tower (with a megaphone).
All committers have access to create a "homepage" already.
>
> As others have said earlier in this discussion, this does not further
> the goals of the ASF.
I disagree.
>
> Woah there! The word "open" is an extremely loaded word in real-life to
> begin with. You can't possibly address a group of people who write
> "open source software" and divide this discussion on these lines.
>
> By the mere fact that anyone who is interested in software development
> within the ASF may join this mailing list and /openly/ discuss this and
> other topics means that we are all part of an open forum. I do not think
> it is fair to shun everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions
> on the creation of a community.apache.org website as "closed".
This is my opinion. So far every issue I've seen discussed here has
been pretty evenly
polarized between the "more open" and "less open".. You could almost
assign ideological
political parties. (though I think that would be a negative development)
>
> Nobody here is saying that people can't have their homepages or
> blogs, they're just saying not to do it on an apache.org website.
But THAT is not the topic at hand. You can already do this. No one has
actually proposed taking
that right away. Just creating an alias.
Let me rephrase the proposal in a way that would have been accepted.
"Create a DNS Alias called community.apache.org so that people don't
confuse the existing and new
Apache memeber/committer homepages with Official ASF pages" (if there
is such a thing)
The homepages are there and growing...deal with it. The DNS alias is
ANOTHER issue that can be
of advantage on both sides of the isle.
-Andy
>
> -aaron
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 01:28 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage
>> used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de
>> facto representation of the face of the Apache community.
>>
>> FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community
>> around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely
>> self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site
>> somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this.
>>
> Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna. People
> think I'm the one who is too negative!
> I work on Apache stuff in part because I like having my mind opened by
> really smart developers who oddly enough "self select". I can code
> anywhere.
>
> If you'll look the home pages haven't become that at all. They're all
> short little bios or "here is where you can find my homepage" type
> stuff. Some are "here's things I'm working on and here's my proposed
> solution to this and that"..
> I'm interested in having a place where I can quickly look up the
> basics of the guy who walks up to me at an ApacheCon or JUG meeting or
> something and says "I'm so and so" .. . I sneak off and say "oh yeah
> that guy"... I'm interested in knowing more about the men (and women,
> but lets face it there just ain' that many) behind the email
> addresses, bringing that personal touch to the community. For me that
> personal touch errodes the antipathy that seems to be coming from the
> "other side of the isle"..
That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think
that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little
"here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project"
pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book.
> I'm interested in bringing others closer to the community whom
> currently do regard it as some kind of "star chamber". .(I'd say thats
> the prevalent view) I notice a lot of folks share these views, but I
> can tell there is a whole other side whom hold the exact opposite
> opinion.
If having a homepage on apache.org becomes one of the valued privileges
one gets after being accepted into the ASF, then we will only be
replacing
the star chamber with an ivory tower (with a megaphone).
As others have said earlier in this discussion, this does not further
the goals of the ASF.
> It keeps coming back down to this:
> open (we sit on the left)
> closed (you sit on the right)
Woah there! The word "open" is an extremely loaded word in real-life to
begin with. You can't possibly address a group of people who write
"open source software" and divide this discussion on these lines.
By the mere fact that anyone who is interested in software development
within the ASF may join this mailing list and /openly/ discuss this and
other topics means that we are all part of an open forum. I do not think
it is fair to shun everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions
on the creation of a community.apache.org website as "closed".
> and it really keeps being that simple.
>
> I hear from the other side "lets make sure we silence these voices
> before they get too loud" and I guess I tend to think "if they get too
> loud I'll ignore them".. In fact the web pages are awesome for this
> because I don't even have to filter...Just don't go to them if they
> offend your sensibilities.
> But I keep hearing "we don't want to talk, but you shut up too" and
> that is just....depressing.
Nobody here is saying that people can't have their homepages or
blogs, they're just saying not to do it on an apache.org website.
-aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>
>I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage
>used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de
>facto representation of the face of the Apache community.
>
>FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community
>around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely
>self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site
>somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this.
>
>
Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna. People think
I'm the one who is too negative!
I work on Apache stuff in part because I like having my mind opened by
really smart developers who oddly enough "self select". I can code
anywhere.
If you'll look the home pages haven't become that at all. They're all
short little bios or "here is where you can find my homepage" type
stuff. Some are "here's things I'm working on and here's my proposed
solution to this and that"..
I'm interested in having a place where I can quickly look up the basics
of the guy who walks up to me at an ApacheCon or JUG meeting or
something and says "I'm so and so" .. . I sneak off and say "oh yeah
that guy"... I'm interested in knowing more about the men (and women,
but lets face it there just ain' that many) behind the email addresses,
bringing that personal touch to the community. For me that personal
touch errodes the antipathy that seems to be coming from the "other side
of the isle"..
I'm interested in bringing others closer to the community whom currently
do regard it as some kind of "star chamber". .(I'd say thats the
prevalent view) I notice a lot of folks share these views, but I can
tell there is a whole other side whom hold the exact opposite opinion.
It keeps coming back down to this:
open (we sit on the left)
closed (you sit on the right)
and it really keeps being that simple.
I hear from the other side "lets make sure we silence these voices
before they get too loud" and I guess I tend to think "if they get too
loud I'll ignore them".. In fact the web pages are awesome for this
because I don't even have to filter...Just don't go to them if they
offend your sensibilities.
But I keep hearing "we don't want to talk, but you shut up too" and that
is just....depressing.
-Andy
>-Fitz
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Victor J. Orlikowski wrote:
>
>> Apache is about two things, as I see it: primarily, software and,
>> as a consequence of that software, people.
>
>
> I see it exactly the other way around. Great communities always create
> great software. The opposite is not always true (see sourceforge).
>
+1
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Victor J. Orlikowski wrote:
> Apache is about two things, as I see it: primarily, software and,
> as a consequence of that software, people.
I see it exactly the other way around. Great communities always create
great software. The opposite is not always true (see sourceforge).
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Posted by "Victor J. Orlikowski" <vj...@dulug.duke.edu>.
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:13:26PM -0600, B. W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
<snip>
> I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage
> used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de
> facto representation of the face of the Apache community.
>
Indeed - all projects within Apache represent Apache, regardless
of the disclaimer and hand-waving you tack onto it. As lawyers
often say, you can't unring a bell - once someone looks at a
webpage, that will be part of that person's impression of Apache.
> FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community
> around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely
> self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site
> somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this.
>
Amen.
If I want to get to know someone, I'll do it the old-fashioned way
- I'll strike up a conversation, regardless of the means (e-mail,
irc, what-have-you). If one lacks the conversational skills to do
this - well, that's a personal problem.
Apache is about two things, as I see it: primarily, software and,
as a consequence of that software, people.
Apache would not exist without software; however, software does
not exist without people. We (the people) gather together within
the construct of the ASF to *write software*. Getting to know the
actors within the process is nice, and necessary to maintain the
smooth operation of the process.
I say, if people want to put up webpages to toot their horn about
what they're interested in, or to ensure that others can have
ready conversation topics when ambushing the person, or for
self-aggrandizement, fine.
But Apache is not the place for it.
(And, if it is not clear by now, I'm -1 on the whole shmooze.)
Victor
--
Victor J. Orlikowski | The Wall is Down, But the Threat Remains!
==================================================================
orlikowski@apache.org | vjo@dulug.duke.edu | vjo@us.ibm.com