You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> on 2011/11/17 23:18:39 UTC
[WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Hi All,
There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move to the ooo-site tree.
The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for volunteers.
HTH, but I also have a full time job...
Regards,
Dave
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website.
> One
> >> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to
> fit
> >> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
> >> >
> >> > On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed
> >> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
> >> >
> >> > Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
> >> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
> >> >
> >> > I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
> >> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext
> and
> >> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or
> move
> >> to the ooo-site tree.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
> >> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
> >> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
> >>
> >> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
> >> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
> >> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
> >>
> >
> > Rob--
> >
> > I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going to
> > follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects" tab
> is
> > now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but I'm
> not
> > understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing "participate "
> > link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
> >
> > In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a "contribute"
> > page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to
> contribute/participate,
> > so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
> >
> > I think you are making a distinction between participating and
> contributing
> > (?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
> > contributions?
> >
>
> In English, participate means to take part in. Contribute means to
> give something (including money, time, resources, etc.) for a
> charitable purpose. So anyone who participates in the project is also
> contributing to the project via their time.. But not everyone who
> contributes is also participating. For example, if you just donate
> via Paypal, then you are contributing, but not participating.
>
OK, thanks for the clarification. I think in the legacy OOo parlance, these
terms perhaps were not distinguished in this way.
>
> >
> >> 2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
> >> volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
> >> help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
> >> you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
> >> a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
> >>
> >
> > OK, in this sense, perhaps the existing contributing.html can be used
> with
> > changes.
> > Again, I'm confused about your initial distinctions I guess.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
> >> they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
> >> (ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
> >> be overwhelming for newbies.
> >>
> >> With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
> >> these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
> >> volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
> >>
> >> As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
> >> certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
> >> link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
> >> the relevant Apache page?
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> > The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to
> hidden
> >> overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a
> complete
> >> checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is
> >> very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for
> >> volunteers.
> >> >
> >> > HTH, but I also have a full time job...
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Dave
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> > by the way its animals are treated."
> > -- Mohandas Gandhi
> >
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 18, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website.
> One
> >>>> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.orgto fit
> >>>> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is
> accessed
> >>>> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
> >>>> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
> >>>> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext
> and
> >>>> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or
> move
> >>>> to the ooo-site tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
> >>>> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
> >>>> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
> >>>> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
> >>>> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Rob--
> >>>
> >>> I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going
> to
> >>> follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects"
> tab is
> >>> now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but
> I'm not
> >>> understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing
> "participate "
> >>> link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
> >>>
> >>> In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a
> "contribute"
> >>> page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to
> contribute/participate,
> >>> so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
> >>>
> >>> I think you are making a distinction between participating and
> contributing
> >>> (?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
> >>> contributions?
> >>>
> >>
> >> In English, participate means to take part in. Contribute means to
> >> give something (including money, time, resources, etc.) for a
> >> charitable purpose. So anyone who participates in the project is also
> >> contributing to the project via their time.. But not everyone who
> >> contributes is also participating. For example, if you just donate
> >> via Paypal, then you are contributing, but not participating.
> >
> > The site says "Participate" this what the pages describe and what the
> rewrite should be.
> >
> > The subdomain and OOo / Collabnet / Kenai project is contributing.
> contributing.openoffice.org can have a permanent redirection wherever we
> decide. We can reduce all links to the old site to the index of the new
> Participate Page(s).
> >
> > The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
> >
> > Programming
> > Marketing
> > Quality Assurance
> > Graphics and Art
> > Writing
> > Helping Users
> > User Experience
> > Monetary Donations
> > Language Communities
> >
> > I think most of the categories should be kept.
> >
> > There is also a guideline. This should be replaced with an introduction
> to the Apache Way. There should be concrete examples of how users can find
> a ways to participate in the project within each category.
> >
> > Programming
> > ooo-dev, svn, builds, ...
> > Marketing
> > ooo-marketing, ...
> > Quality Assurance
> > Bugzilla, ...
> > Graphics and Art
> > Logos, icons, fonts, skins, ...
> > Writing
> > Apache CMS, ODFAuthors, api docs, ...
> > Helping Users
> > ooo-users, Forums
> > User Experience
> > ?
> > Monetary Donations
> > ASF donations and sponsorship links.
> > Language Communities
> > Language Packs, N-L communities, what to do to add support for a
> language to AOO.
> > NL Mailing lists, NL Forums.
> > Apache Software Foundation
> > The Apache Way, Project Governance, ...
> >
> >
> > The more I think about this the more I think these are podling pages.
> >
>
> What I see is this:
>
> 1) What we have at openoffice.org today for this page is pretty much
> 100% wrong. It is useless or worse for anyone interested in learning
> how to participate in AOO.
>
> 2) Any prolonged development and planning effort around creating a new
> sub-site is equally ineffective, at least in the near term, since no
> users go to ooo-site.
>
> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
> within a couple of weeks,
>
> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
> done in, say the next two weeks.
>
WOW! OK, lots to do in a rather short time period! I totally agree that the
current site says NOTHING about working with Apache. In some sense, we're
luck that none of the tab navigation elements came across, so, for now, we
need to deal with what's only linked from the home page as it stands!
> -Rob
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently
> >>>> redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can
> proceed
> >>>> independently from the content correction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
> >>>>>> within a couple of weeks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and
> >>>> pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the
> >>>> podling site as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the
> short
> >>>>>> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to
> it.,
> >>>>>> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is
> better
> >>>>>> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
> >>>>>> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager
> up
> >>>>>> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course,
> someone
> >>>>>> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
> >>>>>> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
> >>>>>> done in, say the next two weeks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some
> >>>> attention to the AOO podling's story.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's try to restart this thread, since it appears entropy got he best
> >>>> of it in the first try.
> >>>>
> >>>> We currently have this on the Podling website:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we update that as needed and just direct the participate page to
> >> that?
> >>>>
> >>>> One higher level issue we have is that we have never reached consensus
> >>>> on how the Apache-domain project site and the openoffice.org site
> >>>> relate. I'll start another thread on that/
> >>>>
> >>>> -Rob
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Dave
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Rob
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Rob--We can certainly do this pretty quickly if that's what we TRULY
> >> want.
> >>> I don't see any responses to this in the last 4 days.
> >>>
> >>> My only concern/objection is that if we did this, the "users" are
> bounced
> >>> out of the user portal and into what we are now considering the
> >> "developer"
> >>> portal, but, oh well.
> >>
> >> This is a concern, but I think that this is the correct action - if a
> user
> >> wants to participate then they are engaging at Apache.
> >>
> >> I think it will be important that the "get_involved" page has been
> updated
> >> and that the PPMC (and our mentors) are happy with it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
> >>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
> >>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
> >>
> >> I am back home and will be thinking through a number of details and a
> >> larger plan.
> >>
> >
> > Oh good! We have LOTS of details to work out that's for sure. I hope I
> can
> > accomplish the redirect through a meta redirect in a header for now --
> thus
> > preserving the content. However, with the current CMS, hmmm....not sure
> if
> > I can get this to work. We'll see.
>
> We can just redirect everything that is contributing.openoffice.org to
> wherever we decide. We'll do this on migration with HTTPD configuration. On
> www. we should just change the URL.
>
ok, gotcha!
>
> As far as preserving the old - at this point I think we should tag the
> directory in svn and then remove it. You have a copy in your people as well.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> MzK
> >>>
> >>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> >>> by the way its animals are treated."
> >>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> > by the way its animals are treated."
> > -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 26, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently
>>>> redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can proceed
>>>> independently from the content correction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
>>>>>> within a couple of weeks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and
>>>> pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
>>>>>
>>>>> downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the
>>>> podling site as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
>>>>>> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
>>>>>> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
>>>>>> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
>>>>>> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
>>>>>> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
>>>>>> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
>>>>>> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
>>>>>> done in, say the next two weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some
>>>> attention to the AOO podling's story.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's try to restart this thread, since it appears entropy got he best
>>>> of it in the first try.
>>>>
>>>> We currently have this on the Podling website:
>>>>
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
>>>>
>>>> Can we update that as needed and just direct the participate page to
>> that?
>>>>
>>>> One higher level issue we have is that we have never reached consensus
>>>> on how the Apache-domain project site and the openoffice.org site
>>>> relate. I'll start another thread on that/
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rob--We can certainly do this pretty quickly if that's what we TRULY
>> want.
>>> I don't see any responses to this in the last 4 days.
>>>
>>> My only concern/objection is that if we did this, the "users" are bounced
>>> out of the user portal and into what we are now considering the
>> "developer"
>>> portal, but, oh well.
>>
>> This is a concern, but I think that this is the correct action - if a user
>> wants to participate then they are engaging at Apache.
>>
>> I think it will be important that the "get_involved" page has been updated
>> and that the PPMC (and our mentors) are happy with it.
>>
>>>
>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>
>> I am back home and will be thinking through a number of details and a
>> larger plan.
>>
>
> Oh good! We have LOTS of details to work out that's for sure. I hope I can
> accomplish the redirect through a meta redirect in a header for now -- thus
> preserving the content. However, with the current CMS, hmmm....not sure if
> I can get this to work. We'll see.
We can just redirect everything that is contributing.openoffice.org to wherever we decide. We'll do this on migration with HTTPD configuration. On www. we should just change the URL.
As far as preserving the old - at this point I think we should tag the directory in svn and then remove it. You have a copy in your people as well.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
> -- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently
> >> redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
> >>>
> >>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
> >>>
> >>> or
> >>>
> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
> >>>
> >>> As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can proceed
> >> independently from the content correction.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
> >>>> within a couple of weeks,
> >>>
> >>> Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and
> >> pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
> >>>
> >>> downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the
> >> podling site as possible.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
> >>>> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
> >>>> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
> >>>> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
> >>>> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
> >>>> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
> >>>> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
> >>>> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
> >>>> done in, say the next two weeks.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some
> >> attention to the AOO podling's story.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's try to restart this thread, since it appears entropy got he best
> >> of it in the first try.
> >>
> >> We currently have this on the Podling website:
> >>
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
> >>
> >> Can we update that as needed and just direct the participate page to
> that?
> >>
> >> One higher level issue we have is that we have never reached consensus
> >> on how the Apache-domain project site and the openoffice.org site
> >> relate. I'll start another thread on that/
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Rob--We can certainly do this pretty quickly if that's what we TRULY
> want.
> > I don't see any responses to this in the last 4 days.
> >
> > My only concern/objection is that if we did this, the "users" are bounced
> > out of the user portal and into what we are now considering the
> "developer"
> > portal, but, oh well.
>
> This is a concern, but I think that this is the correct action - if a user
> wants to participate then they are engaging at Apache.
>
> I think it will be important that the "get_involved" page has been updated
> and that the PPMC (and our mentors) are happy with it.
>
> >
> > How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
> > ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
> > Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>
> I am back home and will be thinking through a number of details and a
> larger plan.
>
Oh good! We have LOTS of details to work out that's for sure. I hope I can
accomplish the redirect through a meta redirect in a header for now -- thus
preserving the content. However, with the current CMS, hmmm....not sure if
I can get this to work. We'll see.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> > by the way its animals are treated."
> > -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently
>> redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
>>>
>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
>>>
>>> As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can proceed
>> independently from the content correction.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
>>>> within a couple of weeks,
>>>
>>> Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and
>> pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
>>>
>>> downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the
>> podling site as possible.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
>>>> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
>>>> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
>>>> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
>>>> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
>>>> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
>>>> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
>>>> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
>>>> done in, say the next two weeks.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some
>> attention to the AOO podling's story.
>>
>>
>> Let's try to restart this thread, since it appears entropy got he best
>> of it in the first try.
>>
>> We currently have this on the Podling website:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
>>
>> Can we update that as needed and just direct the participate page to that?
>>
>> One higher level issue we have is that we have never reached consensus
>> on how the Apache-domain project site and the openoffice.org site
>> relate. I'll start another thread on that/
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Rob--We can certainly do this pretty quickly if that's what we TRULY want.
> I don't see any responses to this in the last 4 days.
>
> My only concern/objection is that if we did this, the "users" are bounced
> out of the user portal and into what we are now considering the "developer"
> portal, but, oh well.
This is a concern, but I think that this is the correct action - if a user wants to participate then they are engaging at Apache.
I think it will be important that the "get_involved" page has been updated and that the PPMC (and our mentors) are happy with it.
>
> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
I am back home and will be thinking through a number of details and a larger plan.
Regards,
Dave
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
> -- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
>>>>> are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
>>>>> worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And something else to consider: without actual data your chances of
>>>> guessing what are the significant incoming links are is practically
>>>> nil. Since we have not enabled Google Analytics on the site, we
>>>> continue to lack such data.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already
>>>> throwing out.
>>>>
>>>> For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
>>>>
>>>> It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for
>>>> historical reasons?
>>>>
>>>> If we're not willing to enable GA, then our next best bet would be to
>>>> monitor the httpd logs for 404 errors. A regular report of page not
>>>> found errors, sorted by URL and indicating the referrer, will give us
>>>> a targeted list of places were a redirect will help. Otherwise we're
>>>> not going to have much luck with the **2.6 million** external links
>>>> that come into openoffice.org pages.
>>>
>>> The plan is to redirect with wildcards to specific pages. See my other email.
>>>
>>> I am thinking we will do that type of redirect to most of the legacy openoffice.org site. It might make sense to ask Apache Infra for a third Apache CMS tree called ooo-archive and move all of the legacy that is either hopelessly out of date, currently without a people to support it, or irrelevant to OOo under Apache.
>>>
>>> I want to be careful about this as a balancing act of displacing users will need to be considered. Each page that is a target of a redirect will need to be carefully edited to allow that most people arriving at that page will feel lost. They won't be getting what they expect and it might not be in their native language.
>>>
>>
>> How will you know if you are doing this well or poorly? If, due to a
>> typographical error on a redirect rule, how would you know if you
>> "lost" 10,000 pages? That's my concern. We're trying to migrate
>> content with 2.6 million external links to it based on eyeballing a
>> list of redirects. That might get you 90% of the way there. But 10%
>> is still a lot of errors.
>
> I'm pretty good at doing the eyeballs - I've got four of them with progressive lenses - and I think we will have less than 300 rules. I will put all the redirects on the CWiki page I started. I am sure we will have other eyeballs like Joe's and everyone looking at Infrastructure commits.
>
> You've also made some useful suggestions about scanning and testing for broken internal links. This is actually a greater concern to me. IIRC you suggested listing all the hrefs, sorting for duplicates and then testing each.
>
>> Maybe you can get Infra@ to archive http logs for the week before and
>> the week after the migration?
>
> Sure Infra can help us look for 404s from the first week after, but I don't know how the week before would help - the logs are at Oracle and different stuff will be broken.
>
The idea is this: If no one has really been minding the legacy
website or watching for these errors then we're likely starting from a
baseline of some non-zero number of 404's even before migration. You
can imagine how fun it will be to track down what broke in the
migration if some of the errors were pre-existing errors ;-)
Of course, we might not be able to get the legacy logs from Oracle....
> To address your concern we should look specifically at what a 404 error page should look like and how to address this.
>
> Go to qa.openoffice.org and you will see trouble with how bugzilla was migrated without the qa project in front of it.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>>>>>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>>>>>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
>>>>>> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
>>>>>> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
>>>>>> the project contributing page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> MzK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>>>>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>>>>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
Hello again--
OK, based on this discussion (really meta redirects in the header would be
most useful in my opinion), I will NOT be changing the "participate" link
on the now ooo-site home page until the discussion on this is finalized.
Or is it for this one aspect? I'm somewhat confused about the approaches
here.
And yes, we do indeed to redirect the entire "contribute.openoffice.org" to
something just as we'll need to do for ALL the projects sites.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> >>>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be
> figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows.
> Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect
> (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect
> until cut-over.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to
> avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd
> bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting,
> thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
> >>>> are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
> >>>> worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And something else to consider: without actual data your chances of
> >>> guessing what are the significant incoming links are is practically
> >>> nil. Since we have not enabled Google Analytics on the site, we
> >>> continue to lack such data.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already
> >>> throwing out.
> >>>
> >>> For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to
> >>> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
> >>>
> >>> It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for
> >>> historical reasons?
> >>>
> >>> If we're not willing to enable GA, then our next best bet would be to
> >>> monitor the httpd logs for 404 errors. A regular report of page not
> >>> found errors, sorted by URL and indicating the referrer, will give us
> >>> a targeted list of places were a redirect will help. Otherwise we're
> >>> not going to have much luck with the **2.6 million** external links
> >>> that come into openoffice.org pages.
> >>
> >> The plan is to redirect with wildcards to specific pages. See my other
> email.
> >>
> >> I am thinking we will do that type of redirect to most of the legacy
> openoffice.org site. It might make sense to ask Apache Infra for a third
> Apache CMS tree called ooo-archive and move all of the legacy that is
> either hopelessly out of date, currently without a people to support it, or
> irrelevant to OOo under Apache.
> >>
> >> I want to be careful about this as a balancing act of displacing users
> will need to be considered. Each page that is a target of a redirect will
> need to be carefully edited to allow that most people arriving at that page
> will feel lost. They won't be getting what they expect and it might not be
> in their native language.
> >>
> >
> > How will you know if you are doing this well or poorly? If, due to a
> > typographical error on a redirect rule, how would you know if you
> > "lost" 10,000 pages? That's my concern. We're trying to migrate
> > content with 2.6 million external links to it based on eyeballing a
> > list of redirects. That might get you 90% of the way there. But 10%
> > is still a lot of errors.
>
> I'm pretty good at doing the eyeballs - I've got four of them with
> progressive lenses - and I think we will have less than 300 rules. I will
> put all the redirects on the CWiki page I started. I am sure we will have
> other eyeballs like Joe's and everyone looking at Infrastructure commits.
>
> You've also made some useful suggestions about scanning and testing for
> broken internal links. This is actually a greater concern to me. IIRC you
> suggested listing all the hrefs, sorting for duplicates and then testing
> each.
>
> > Maybe you can get Infra@ to archive http logs for the week before and
> > the week after the migration?
>
> Sure Infra can help us look for 404s from the first week after, but I
> don't know how the week before would help - the logs are at Oracle and
> different stuff will be broken.
>
> To address your concern we should look specifically at what a 404 error
> page should look like and how to address this.
>
> Go to qa.openoffice.org and you will see trouble with how bugzilla was
> migrated without the qa project in front of it.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -Rob
> >>>>
> >>>>> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is
> now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to
> timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready
> enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut
> over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling
> cut-over might even be in the cards.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Dennis
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
> >>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting
> contributing.openoffice.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> [ ... ]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1,
> I'll go
> >>>>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to
> this).
> >>>>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
> >>>>> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
> >>>>> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
> >>>>> the project contributing page.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> MzK
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> >>>>>> by the way its animals are treated."
> >>>>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 27, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
>>>> are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
>>>> worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And something else to consider: without actual data your chances of
>>> guessing what are the significant incoming links are is practically
>>> nil. Since we have not enabled Google Analytics on the site, we
>>> continue to lack such data.
>>>
>>> Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already
>>> throwing out.
>>>
>>> For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
>>>
>>> It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for
>>> historical reasons?
>>>
>>> If we're not willing to enable GA, then our next best bet would be to
>>> monitor the httpd logs for 404 errors. A regular report of page not
>>> found errors, sorted by URL and indicating the referrer, will give us
>>> a targeted list of places were a redirect will help. Otherwise we're
>>> not going to have much luck with the **2.6 million** external links
>>> that come into openoffice.org pages.
>>
>> The plan is to redirect with wildcards to specific pages. See my other email.
>>
>> I am thinking we will do that type of redirect to most of the legacy openoffice.org site. It might make sense to ask Apache Infra for a third Apache CMS tree called ooo-archive and move all of the legacy that is either hopelessly out of date, currently without a people to support it, or irrelevant to OOo under Apache.
>>
>> I want to be careful about this as a balancing act of displacing users will need to be considered. Each page that is a target of a redirect will need to be carefully edited to allow that most people arriving at that page will feel lost. They won't be getting what they expect and it might not be in their native language.
>>
>
> How will you know if you are doing this well or poorly? If, due to a
> typographical error on a redirect rule, how would you know if you
> "lost" 10,000 pages? That's my concern. We're trying to migrate
> content with 2.6 million external links to it based on eyeballing a
> list of redirects. That might get you 90% of the way there. But 10%
> is still a lot of errors.
I'm pretty good at doing the eyeballs - I've got four of them with progressive lenses - and I think we will have less than 300 rules. I will put all the redirects on the CWiki page I started. I am sure we will have other eyeballs like Joe's and everyone looking at Infrastructure commits.
You've also made some useful suggestions about scanning and testing for broken internal links. This is actually a greater concern to me. IIRC you suggested listing all the hrefs, sorting for duplicates and then testing each.
> Maybe you can get Infra@ to archive http logs for the week before and
> the week after the migration?
Sure Infra can help us look for 404s from the first week after, but I don't know how the week before would help - the logs are at Oracle and different stuff will be broken.
To address your concern we should look specifically at what a 404 error page should look like and how to address this.
Go to qa.openoffice.org and you will see trouble with how bugzilla was migrated without the qa project in front of it.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>>>>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>>>>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
>>>>> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
>>>>> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
>>>>> the project contributing page.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> MzK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>>>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>>>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
>>>>
>>>> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
>>> are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
>>> worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
>>>
>>
>> And something else to consider: without actual data your chances of
>> guessing what are the significant incoming links are is practically
>> nil. Since we have not enabled Google Analytics on the site, we
>> continue to lack such data.
>>
>> Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already
>> throwing out.
>>
>> For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to
>> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
>>
>> It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for
>> historical reasons?
>>
>> If we're not willing to enable GA, then our next best bet would be to
>> monitor the httpd logs for 404 errors. A regular report of page not
>> found errors, sorted by URL and indicating the referrer, will give us
>> a targeted list of places were a redirect will help. Otherwise we're
>> not going to have much luck with the **2.6 million** external links
>> that come into openoffice.org pages.
>
> The plan is to redirect with wildcards to specific pages. See my other email.
>
> I am thinking we will do that type of redirect to most of the legacy openoffice.org site. It might make sense to ask Apache Infra for a third Apache CMS tree called ooo-archive and move all of the legacy that is either hopelessly out of date, currently without a people to support it, or irrelevant to OOo under Apache.
>
> I want to be careful about this as a balancing act of displacing users will need to be considered. Each page that is a target of a redirect will need to be carefully edited to allow that most people arriving at that page will feel lost. They won't be getting what they expect and it might not be in their native language.
>
How will you know if you are doing this well or poorly? If, due to a
typographical error on a redirect rule, how would you know if you
"lost" 10,000 pages? That's my concern. We're trying to migrate
content with 2.6 million external links to it based on eyeballing a
list of redirects. That might get you 90% of the way there. But 10%
is still a lot of errors.
Maybe you can get Infra@ to archive http logs for the week before and
the week after the migration?
-Rob
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>>>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>>>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
>>>> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
>>>> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
>>>> the project contributing page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
>>>
>>> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
>>>
>>> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
>>>
>>
>> Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
>> are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
>> worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
>>
>
> And something else to consider: without actual data your chances of
> guessing what are the significant incoming links are is practically
> nil. Since we have not enabled Google Analytics on the site, we
> continue to lack such data.
>
> Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already
> throwing out.
>
> For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to
> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
>
> It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for
> historical reasons?
>
> If we're not willing to enable GA, then our next best bet would be to
> monitor the httpd logs for 404 errors. A regular report of page not
> found errors, sorted by URL and indicating the referrer, will give us
> a targeted list of places were a redirect will help. Otherwise we're
> not going to have much luck with the **2.6 million** external links
> that come into openoffice.org pages.
The plan is to redirect with wildcards to specific pages. See my other email.
I am thinking we will do that type of redirect to most of the legacy openoffice.org site. It might make sense to ask Apache Infra for a third Apache CMS tree called ooo-archive and move all of the legacy that is either hopelessly out of date, currently without a people to support it, or irrelevant to OOo under Apache.
I want to be careful about this as a balancing act of displacing users will need to be considered. Each page that is a target of a redirect will need to be carefully edited to allow that most people arriving at that page will feel lost. They won't be getting what they expect and it might not be in their native language.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
>>> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
>>> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
>>> the project contributing page.
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 27 Nov 2011, at 20:47, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already
> throwing out.
>
> For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to
> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
>
> It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for
> historical reasons?
SISSL is documented permanently at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sisslpl.php and we could either advise gnu.org to change their link or redirect there ourselves.
S.
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
>>
>> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
>>
>> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
>>
>
> Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
> are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
> worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
>
And something else to consider: without actual data your chances of
guessing what are the significant incoming links are is practically
nil. Since we have not enabled Google Analytics on the site, we
continue to lack such data.
Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already
throwing out.
For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for
historical reasons?
If we're not willing to enable GA, then our next best bet would be to
monitor the httpd logs for 404 errors. A regular report of page not
found errors, sorted by URL and indicating the referrer, will give us
a targeted list of places were a redirect will help. Otherwise we're
not going to have much luck with the **2.6 million** external links
that come into openoffice.org pages.
> -Rob
>
>> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>[ ... ]
>>
>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
>> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
>> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
>> the project contributing page.
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
>>
>> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
>>
>> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
>>
>
> Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
> are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
> worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
I discussed with Joe at Apachecon the go-live redirect strategy - we should be able to do most everything using permanent redirect rules for virtual hosts in httpd.conf files.
E.g. contributing.openoffice.org/* -> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/.
I have started at OOOUSERS page - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/DNS,+Virtual+Hosts+and+Redirects
There is a large amount of detail to add to this, but you can see the plans forming around DNS, Hosts, Redirects and specific locations in the project's svn tree.
Best Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
>> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
>> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
>> the project contributing page.
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
>
> It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
>
> There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
>
Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you
are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are
worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them.
-Rob
> Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[ ... ]
>
>> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
>> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
>> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>>
>
> I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
> don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
> page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
> the project contributing page.
>
>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>> by the way its animals are treated."
>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>
>
>
RE: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML <head> meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose).
It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over.
There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the "your download is starting, thank you for downloading" pages link to donation/contribution points.)
Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo has reasonable discretion with regard to timing. It seems that cut-over can be done as soon as ooo-site is ready enough to be the new live site. And the subdomains don't all have to cut over together and everything will still work. A progressive, rolling cut-over might even be in the cards.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:11
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[ ... ]
> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>
I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
the project contributing page.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently
>> redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
>> >
>> > http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
>> >
>> > As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can proceed
>> independently from the content correction.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
>> >> within a couple of weeks,
>> >
>> > Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and
>> pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
>> >
>> > downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the
>> podling site as possible.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
>> >> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
>> >> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
>> >> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
>> >> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
>> >> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
>> >> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
>> >> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
>> >> done in, say the next two weeks.
>> >
>> > Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some
>> attention to the AOO podling's story.
>>
>>
>> Let's try to restart this thread, since it appears entropy got he best
>> of it in the first try.
>>
>> We currently have this on the Podling website:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
>>
>> Can we update that as needed and just direct the participate page to that?
>>
>> One higher level issue we have is that we have never reached consensus
>> on how the Apache-domain project site and the openoffice.org site
>> relate. I'll start another thread on that/
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> -Rob
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> Rob--We can certainly do this pretty quickly if that's what we TRULY want.
> I don't see any responses to this in the last 4 days.
>
> My only concern/objection is that if we did this, the "users" are bounced
> out of the user portal and into what we are now considering the "developer"
> portal, but, oh well.
>
I think that is the intended behavior, as the user changes focus from
"product" to "project". By analogy, if you are at the Pepsi website
and want to look for a job, then you go to the PepsiCo corporate
website and look at their HR page. There might be some commonality
across the two sites, a common color scheme, etc., so the transition
does not need to be abrupt.
> How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
> ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
> Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
>
I don't know if we need to do an actual HTTP-level redirect. I
don't think there are many external links to the OOo contributing
page. It would be sufficient if we just change the link to point to
the project contributing page.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently
> redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
> >
> > http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
> >
> > As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can proceed
> independently from the content correction.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
> >> within a couple of weeks,
> >
> > Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and
> pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
> >
> > downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the
> podling site as possible.
> >
> >>
> >> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
> >> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
> >> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
> >> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
> >> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
> >> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
> >> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
> >> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
> >> done in, say the next two weeks.
> >
> > Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some
> attention to the AOO podling's story.
>
>
> Let's try to restart this thread, since it appears entropy got he best
> of it in the first try.
>
> We currently have this on the Podling website:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
>
> Can we update that as needed and just direct the participate page to that?
>
> One higher level issue we have is that we have never reached consensus
> on how the Apache-domain project site and the openoffice.org site
> relate. I'll start another thread on that/
>
> -Rob
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >
> >
>
Rob--We can certainly do this pretty quickly if that's what we TRULY want.
I don't see any responses to this in the last 4 days.
My only concern/objection is that if we did this, the "users" are bounced
out of the user portal and into what we are now considering the "developer"
portal, but, oh well.
How about if we don't hear any major objections by say, Dec. 1, I'll go
ahead and make this change (redirect contributing/index.html to this).
Nothing is in concrete, we can always go back or do something else.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
>
> http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
>
> or
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
>
> As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can proceed independently from the content correction.
>
>
>>
>> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
>> within a couple of weeks,
>
> Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
>
> downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the podling site as possible.
>
>>
>> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
>> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
>> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
>> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
>> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
>> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
>> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
>> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
>> done in, say the next two weeks.
>
> Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some attention to the AOO podling's story.
Let's try to restart this thread, since it appears entropy got he best
of it in the first try.
We currently have this on the Podling website:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
Can we update that as needed and just direct the participate page to that?
One higher level issue we have is that we have never reached consensus
on how the Apache-domain project site and the openoffice.org site
relate. I'll start another thread on that/
-Rob
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One
>>>>> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit
>>>>> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed
>>>>> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
>>>>> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
>>>>> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and
>>>>> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move
>>>>> to the ooo-site tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
>>>>> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
>>>>> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
>>>>> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
>>>>> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob--
>>>>
>>>> I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going to
>>>> follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects" tab is
>>>> now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but I'm not
>>>> understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing "participate "
>>>> link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
>>>>
>>>> In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a "contribute"
>>>> page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to contribute/participate,
>>>> so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
>>>>
>>>> I think you are making a distinction between participating and contributing
>>>> (?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
>>>> contributions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In English, participate means to take part in. Contribute means to
>>> give something (including money, time, resources, etc.) for a
>>> charitable purpose. So anyone who participates in the project is also
>>> contributing to the project via their time.. But not everyone who
>>> contributes is also participating. For example, if you just donate
>>> via Paypal, then you are contributing, but not participating.
>>
>> The site says "Participate" this what the pages describe and what the rewrite should be.
>>
>> The subdomain and OOo / Collabnet / Kenai project is contributing. contributing.openoffice.org can have a permanent redirection wherever we decide. We can reduce all links to the old site to the index of the new Participate Page(s).
>>
>> The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
>>
>> Programming
>> Marketing
>> Quality Assurance
>> Graphics and Art
>> Writing
>> Helping Users
>> User Experience
>> Monetary Donations
>> Language Communities
>>
>> I think most of the categories should be kept.
>>
>> There is also a guideline. This should be replaced with an introduction to the Apache Way. There should be concrete examples of how users can find a ways to participate in the project within each category.
>>
>> Programming
>> ooo-dev, svn, builds, ...
>> Marketing
>> ooo-marketing, ...
>> Quality Assurance
>> Bugzilla, ...
>> Graphics and Art
>> Logos, icons, fonts, skins, ...
>> Writing
>> Apache CMS, ODFAuthors, api docs, ...
>> Helping Users
>> ooo-users, Forums
>> User Experience
>> ?
>> Monetary Donations
>> ASF donations and sponsorship links.
>> Language Communities
>> Language Packs, N-L communities, what to do to add support for a language to AOO.
>> NL Mailing lists, NL Forums.
>> Apache Software Foundation
>> The Apache Way, Project Governance, ...
>>
>>
>> The more I think about this the more I think these are podling pages.
>>
>
> What I see is this:
>
> 1) What we have at openoffice.org today for this page is pretty much
> 100% wrong. It is useless or worse for anyone interested in learning
> how to participate in AOO.
>
> 2) Any prolonged development and planning effort around creating a new
> sub-site is equally ineffective, at least in the near term, since no
> users go to ooo-site.
I agree that we can be quick. We will ask Apache Infra to permanently redirect contributing.openoffice.org to our new page either to
http://ooo-site.apache.org/participate/
or
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/participate/
As long as there is a simple page in place the infra change can proceed independently from the content correction.
>
> 3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
> within a couple of weeks,
Well, next few weeks. I'm contemplating a more direct approach and pruning approach that must proceed specially for several subdomains.
downloads.oo.o is another discussion and it goes as far away from the podling site as possible.
>
> So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
> term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
> expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
> than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
> I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
> for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
> actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
> more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
> done in, say the next two weeks.
Agreed. Keep it simple and then refine it. I think it will turn some attention to the AOO podling's story.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One
>>>> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit
>>>> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed
>>>> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
>>>>>
>>>>> Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
>>>> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
>>>> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and
>>>> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move
>>>> to the ooo-site tree.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
>>>> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
>>>> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
>>>>
>>>> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
>>>> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
>>>> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rob--
>>>
>>> I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going to
>>> follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects" tab is
>>> now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but I'm not
>>> understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing "participate "
>>> link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
>>>
>>> In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a "contribute"
>>> page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to contribute/participate,
>>> so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
>>>
>>> I think you are making a distinction between participating and contributing
>>> (?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
>>> contributions?
>>>
>>
>> In English, participate means to take part in. Contribute means to
>> give something (including money, time, resources, etc.) for a
>> charitable purpose. So anyone who participates in the project is also
>> contributing to the project via their time.. But not everyone who
>> contributes is also participating. For example, if you just donate
>> via Paypal, then you are contributing, but not participating.
>
> The site says "Participate" this what the pages describe and what the rewrite should be.
>
> The subdomain and OOo / Collabnet / Kenai project is contributing. contributing.openoffice.org can have a permanent redirection wherever we decide. We can reduce all links to the old site to the index of the new Participate Page(s).
>
> The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
>
> Programming
> Marketing
> Quality Assurance
> Graphics and Art
> Writing
> Helping Users
> User Experience
> Monetary Donations
> Language Communities
>
> I think most of the categories should be kept.
>
> There is also a guideline. This should be replaced with an introduction to the Apache Way. There should be concrete examples of how users can find a ways to participate in the project within each category.
>
> Programming
> ooo-dev, svn, builds, ...
> Marketing
> ooo-marketing, ...
> Quality Assurance
> Bugzilla, ...
> Graphics and Art
> Logos, icons, fonts, skins, ...
> Writing
> Apache CMS, ODFAuthors, api docs, ...
> Helping Users
> ooo-users, Forums
> User Experience
> ?
> Monetary Donations
> ASF donations and sponsorship links.
> Language Communities
> Language Packs, N-L communities, what to do to add support for a language to AOO.
> NL Mailing lists, NL Forums.
> Apache Software Foundation
> The Apache Way, Project Governance, ...
>
>
> The more I think about this the more I think these are podling pages.
>
What I see is this:
1) What we have at openoffice.org today for this page is pretty much
100% wrong. It is useless or worse for anyone interested in learning
how to participate in AOO.
2) Any prolonged development and planning effort around creating a new
sub-site is equally ineffective, at least in the near term, since no
users go to ooo-site.
3) From what I've been told, the plan is to switch the ooo-site live
within a couple of weeks,
So.... it seems to me that anything that can be done now, in the short
term, is more useful. We can always refine it over time, add to it.,
expand it, make it more friendly, etc. But almost anything is better
than the 100% incorrect information that is on the website now. So
I'd recommend, per my original proposal, that we just put a 1-pager up
for now, directing volunteers to ooo-dev. Unless, of course, someone
actually is volunteering to do more in this same timeframe. Doing
more later is fine as well. But let's keep the focus on what can be
done in, say the next two weeks.
-Rob
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> +1 on podling pages.
Someone needs to build and repurpose the podling pages. When they are ready we can request the redirection from Apache Infra.
This can be done before the full site migration.
>
> Good catch.
>
> I think maybe contributing.openoffice.org should go away. If it redirects, it should be to an i.a.o page, but nuking it might be best of all.
>
> The places where there are links to it need to be renamed for Contributing to Apache OpenOffice, unless it is better to link some to a wiki page that links to the many OO.o-peer projects that would enjoy contributors. I'm for that on the OpenOffice.org domain.
Peer projects might be here as well, or on a wiki. Policy about these links must be discussed separately.
Regards,
Dave
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:41
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The subdomain and OOo / Collabnet / Kenai project is contributing. contributing.openoffice.org can have a permanent redirection wherever we decide. We can reduce all links to the old site to the index of the new Participate Page(s).
>
> The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
>
> Programming
> Marketing
> Quality Assurance
> Graphics and Art
> Writing
> Helping Users
> User Experience
> Monetary Donations
> Language Communities
>
> I think most of the categories should be kept.
>
> There is also a guideline. This should be replaced with an introduction to the Apache Way. There should be concrete examples of how users can find a ways to participate in the project within each category.
>
> Programming
> ooo-dev, svn, builds, ...
> Marketing
> ooo-marketing, ...
> Quality Assurance
> Bugzilla, ...
> Graphics and Art
> Logos, icons, fonts, skins, ...
> Writing
> Apache CMS, ODFAuthors, api docs, ...
> Helping Users
> ooo-users, Forums
> User Experience
> ?
> Monetary Donations
> ASF donations and sponsorship links.
> Language Communities
> Language Packs, N-L communities, what to do to add support for a language to AOO.
> NL Mailing lists, NL Forums.
> Apache Software Foundation
> The Apache Way, Project Governance, ...
>
>
> The more I think about this the more I think these are podling pages.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
>>>> volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
>>>> help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
>>>> you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
>>>> a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, in this sense, perhaps the existing contributing.html can be used with
>>> changes.
>>> Again, I'm confused about your initial distinctions I guess.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
>>>> they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
>>>> (ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
>>>> be overwhelming for newbies.
>>>>
>>>> With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
>>>> these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
>>>> volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
>>>>
>>>> As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
>>>> certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
>>>> link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
>>>> the relevant Apache page?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden
>>>> overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete
>>>> checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is
>>>> very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for
>>>> volunteers.
>>>>>
>>>>> HTH, but I also have a full time job...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>
>
RE: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1 on podling pages.
Good catch.
I think maybe contributing.openoffice.org should go away. If it redirects, it should be to an i.a.o page, but nuking it might be best of all.
The places where there are links to it need to be renamed for Contributing to Apache OpenOffice, unless it is better to link some to a wiki page that links to the many OO.o-peer projects that would enjoy contributors. I'm for that on the OpenOffice.org domain.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:41
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
[ ... ]
The subdomain and OOo / Collabnet / Kenai project is contributing. contributing.openoffice.org can have a permanent redirection wherever we decide. We can reduce all links to the old site to the index of the new Participate Page(s).
The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
Programming
Marketing
Quality Assurance
Graphics and Art
Writing
Helping Users
User Experience
Monetary Donations
Language Communities
I think most of the categories should be kept.
There is also a guideline. This should be replaced with an introduction to the Apache Way. There should be concrete examples of how users can find a ways to participate in the project within each category.
Programming
ooo-dev, svn, builds, ...
Marketing
ooo-marketing, ...
Quality Assurance
Bugzilla, ...
Graphics and Art
Logos, icons, fonts, skins, ...
Writing
Apache CMS, ODFAuthors, api docs, ...
Helping Users
ooo-users, Forums
User Experience
?
Monetary Donations
ASF donations and sponsorship links.
Language Communities
Language Packs, N-L communities, what to do to add support for a language to AOO.
NL Mailing lists, NL Forums.
Apache Software Foundation
The Apache Way, Project Governance, ...
The more I think about this the more I think these are podling pages.
Regards,
Dave
>
>>
>>> 2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
>>> volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
>>> help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
>>> you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
>>> a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
>>>
>>
>> OK, in this sense, perhaps the existing contributing.html can be used with
>> changes.
>> Again, I'm confused about your initial distinctions I guess.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
>>> they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
>>> (ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
>>> be overwhelming for newbies.
>>>
>>> With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
>>> these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
>>> volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
>>>
>>> As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
>>> certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
>>> link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
>>> the relevant Apache page?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden
>>> overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete
>>> checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is
>>> very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for
>>> volunteers.
>>>>
>>>> HTH, but I also have a full time job...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>> by the way its animals are treated."
>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>
Re: [OT] Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 21 nov. 11 à 13:56, Shane Curcuru a écrit :
>>
>> I have perfectly understood, but you'll probably have to
>> distrubute some
>> roles too. This is urgent.
>
> Why do you say that? What roles besides sufficiently diverse PPMC
> members and enough committers to work on the code base does the
> podling need?
>
I meant the areas of work are various, e.g. marketing, communication,
and some other domains too. Too much of work will need to delegate.
OpenOffice.org has a bad image in the public currently. Just to
mention the french case, people think OpenOffice.org is still Oracle
owned and is no longer free. More we wait and more the bad
information propagates.
> ...
>>
>> In return, ...
> Apologies if my style was misinterpreted;
Accepted. Let's concentrate us on the graduation you mentioned.
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [OT] Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-11-21 1:35 AM, eric b wrote:
...
> So why do you protect people like you do with Hagar Delest ?
>
> Refuse other people to know all the people working with them is exactly
> the beginning of such Monarchy : people are not equal in your system.
Because that's ASF policy in terms of accepting iCLAs and allowing
committers to have access. It has nothing to do with Hagar. It's also
not going to change. It's also not going to allow or become a monarchy.
> Remember : I only ask that PPMC know the real name of everybody in the
> PPMC, nothing else. How can we trust people if we don't know who they are ?
"Get used to disappointment."
...
>> I also think it's pretty clear from the discussions here by the most
>> active PPMC members (in terms of actual commits, not mailing list
>> traffic) that this PPMC explicitly does not want to re-form any of the
>> structures from the previous OpenOffice.org project.
>
>
> I have perfectly understood, but you'll probably have to distrubute some
> roles too. This is urgent.
Why do you say that? What roles besides sufficiently diverse PPMC
members and enough committers to work on the code base does the podling
need?
...
>
> In return, I got your sarcasms.
Apologies if my style was misinterpreted; I was not trying to be
sarcastic in my previous reply. Just trying to point out the very real
differences between how Apache projects are run and how the previous
OpenOffice.org project was run. Differences that will be enforced if
the project wishes to graduate to become a full Apache project.
- Shane
Re: [OT] Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 20 nov. 11 à 17:38, Shane Curcuru a écrit :
> On 2011-11-20 3:19 AM, eric b wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Le 20 nov. 11 à 01:30, Kay Schenk a écrit :
>>
>>> OK, I truly hate to make a comment like this, but...
>>>
>>> eric b, any chance you could take your issues with Louis
>>> somewhere other
>>> than this list?
>
> Kay has a point, and in a more established Apache project this kind
> of discussion would *not* be appreciated.
I perfectly understand.
> However I understand that there's a lot of history in the
> previous OpenOffice.org project, especially with a lot of strong-
> willed individuals, so I'll contribute to this thread.
And you will see that Oracle was not the bad boy. And you'll discover
that a little number of people, always the same, mostly producing
nothing, had some responsabilties in the disaster too.
The same one are on top of the TDF now, and some are there, inside
Apache OpenOffice.org.
>
>> Everything I reported are facts, that you can verify in the archives.
>> I'm simply describing a system who caused a disaster in
>> OpenOffice.org.
>> Louis was just one ot "the band".
>>
>> If what people reported me is true, this "Monarchy" is still alive
>> (I've
>> heard of "discussions with old Community Council") , and probably,
>> there
>> is one plan behind the wood.
>
> Do you have specific references to such behavior happening within
> an Apache project?
>
> If you do not, well, then I can only say with my 9 years of
> experience being an Apache Member that Monarchies are *not*
> tolerated at Apache, and if the relevant (P)PMC can't ensure that
> the community acts in an open and meritocratic way, that either the
> Incubator PMC or the board will step in to ensure that it does (or,
> will terminate the podling/project).
So why do you protect people like you do with Hagar Delest ?
Refuse other people to know all the people working with them is
exactly the beginning of such Monarchy : people are not equal in
your system.
Remember : I only ask that PPMC know the real name of everybody in
the PPMC, nothing else. How can we trust people if we don't know who
they are ?
>
> I can also say with my AOO Mentor hat that from my perspective, the
> Community Council of the previous OpenOffice.org project is gone,
> ceased, no longer exists as an officially recognized organization.
> A lot of past organizational structures that were related to the
> Sun or Oracle led project in the past are gone; it's just that
> Oracle never bothered to officially announce the end of them (as
> best I can see). It's obvious that a number of people who used to
> have titles or roles in those organizations are hoping to get them
> back or otherwise continue to use them, but they have no meaning
> within the governance of this Apache podling.
>
> I also think it's pretty clear from the discussions here by the
> most active PPMC members (in terms of actual commits, not mailing
> list traffic) that this PPMC explicitly does not want to re-form
> any of the structures from the previous OpenOffice.org project.
I have perfectly understood, but you'll probably have to distrubute
some roles too. This is urgent.
>
>> As volunteer, not being paid, and working a lot on the code in my
>> spare time, I'd like to concentrate me on something ethical and
>> true, to avoid this occur again, and see the MERIT and TRUE
>> CONTRIBUTIONS (not only code) being the motor, but not politics,
>> nor mind manipulators.
>>
>> If I have some doubts, or if ever the old crappy system is back, I
>> promise to immediately stop to contribute to Apache
>> OpenOffice.org, without regret.
>
> Yes, you've said this before (in terms of leaving the project if
> you couldn't know Hagar's true identity), which I have to say from
> my perspective doesn't help your argument any (at least not in the
> typical Apache Way mindset).
And I can explain easely : I was really unsubscribed a long time,
ignoring everything about Apache OOo (that's why I ignore a lot of
things discussed in meantime).
Recently, one reported me issues, and I - generously - proposed to
fix them in apache OpenOffice.org too. I did that because I simply
wanted to help, and share my knowledge (I'm not paid for anything I
do in free software world). My purpose was to help Apache
OpenOfice.org, because what is happening (e.g. in France) is not
honest too (Communication war, and bad lobbying).
In return, I got your sarcasms.
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [OT] Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-11-20 3:19 AM, eric b wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Le 20 nov. 11 à 01:30, Kay Schenk a écrit :
>
>> OK, I truly hate to make a comment like this, but...
>>
>> eric b, any chance you could take your issues with Louis somewhere other
>> than this list?
Kay has a point, and in a more established Apache project this kind of
discussion would *not* be appreciated. However I understand that
there's a lot of history in the previous OpenOffice.org project,
especially with a lot of strong-willed individuals, so I'll contribute
to this thread.
> Everything I reported are facts, that you can verify in the archives.
> I'm simply describing a system who caused a disaster in OpenOffice.org.
> Louis was just one ot "the band".
>
> If what people reported me is true, this "Monarchy" is still alive (I've
> heard of "discussions with old Community Council") , and probably, there
> is one plan behind the wood.
Do you have specific references to such behavior happening within an
Apache project?
If you do not, well, then I can only say with my 9 years of experience
being an Apache Member that Monarchies are *not* tolerated at Apache,
and if the relevant (P)PMC can't ensure that the community acts in an
open and meritocratic way, that either the Incubator PMC or the board
will step in to ensure that it does (or, will terminate the
podling/project).
I can also say with my AOO Mentor hat that from my perspective, the
Community Council of the previous OpenOffice.org project is gone,
ceased, no longer exists as an officially recognized organization. A
lot of past organizational structures that were related to the Sun or
Oracle led project in the past are gone; it's just that Oracle never
bothered to officially announce the end of them (as best I can see).
It's obvious that a number of people who used to have titles or roles in
those organizations are hoping to get them back or otherwise continue to
use them, but they have no meaning within the governance of this Apache
podling.
I also think it's pretty clear from the discussions here by the most
active PPMC members (in terms of actual commits, not mailing list
traffic) that this PPMC explicitly does not want to re-form any of the
structures from the previous OpenOffice.org project.
> As volunteer, not being paid, and working a lot on the code in my spare
> time, I'd like to concentrate me on something ethical and true, to avoid
> this occur again, and see the MERIT and TRUE CONTRIBUTIONS (not only
> code) being the motor, but not politics, nor mind manipulators.
>
>
> If I have some doubts, or if ever the old crappy system is back, I
> promise to immediately stop to contribute to Apache OpenOffice.org,
> without regret.
Yes, you've said this before (in terms of leaving the project if you
couldn't know Hagar's true identity), which I have to say from my
perspective doesn't help your argument any (at least not in the typical
Apache Way mindset).
- Shane
>
>
>
>> This is, I believe, the second personal rant I've seen like this, and
>> I, for one, don't really feel it's appropriate for the venue.
>
>
> Well, if you read carefully :
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council_Log_20091217
>
> ... you'll read that I "alienated developers" : [15:27:41] louis_to and
> the fact that the lead seems to alienate a lot of develoopers,
> arccording to reports
>
>
> Please be curious : notice the name of the people present, and think
> what's happening with them today.
>
> My reaction is not a rant, but rather some "please, Apache people, open
> your eyes".
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>
[OT] Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 20 nov. 11 à 01:30, Kay Schenk a écrit :
> OK, I truly hate to make a comment like this, but...
>
> eric b, any chance you could take your issues with Louis somewhere
> other
> than this list?
Everything I reported are facts, that you can verify in the
archives. I'm simply describing a system who caused a disaster in
OpenOffice.org. Louis was just one ot "the band".
If what people reported me is true, this "Monarchy" is still alive
(I've heard of "discussions with old Community Council") , and
probably, there is one plan behind the wood.
As volunteer, not being paid, and working a lot on the code in my
spare time, I'd like to concentrate me on something ethical and true,
to avoid this occur again, and see the MERIT and TRUE CONTRIBUTIONS
(not only code) being the motor, but not politics, nor mind
manipulators.
If I have some doubts, or if ever the old crappy system is back, I
promise to immediately stop to contribute to Apache OpenOffice.org,
without regret.
> This is, I believe, the second personal rant I've seen like this,
> and I, for one, don't really feel it's appropriate for the venue.
Well, if you read carefully : http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/
wiki/Community_Council_Log_20091217
... you'll read that I "alienated developers" : [15:27:41] louis_to
and the fact that the lead seems to alienate a lot of develoopers,
arccording to reports
Please be curious : notice the name of the people present, and think
what's happening with them today.
My reaction is not a rant, but rather some "please, Apache people,
open your eyes".
Regards,
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
OK, I truly hate to make a comment like this, but...
eric b, any chance you could take your issues with Louis somewhere other
than this list? This is, I believe, the second personal rant I've seen like
this, and I, for one, don't really feel it's appropriate for the venue.
Thanks.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:01 AM, eric b <er...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Le 19 nov. 11 à 06:29, Louis Suárez-Potts a écrit :
>
>
> As the guy who created the education project on OOo,
>>
>
>
> As admin : you added one project. But everybody knows you systematicvaly
> were admin of everything in OpenOffice.org. Everybody knows that nobody can
> be lead of several projects like you were, say .... seriously.
>
> Back to the Education side, you even did obstruction when we started to
> improve thing, with your friends, who today moved to the TDF. Worse : you
> did everything to avoid people to see their expenses founded, to attend
> conferences.
>
> There was always money for you, even for the (crappy) Community Council
> doing the fest at Bruxelles, with people today at TDF, and obviously no
> result ... (everything is in the archives).
>
>
> Another fact: you forced us (Education Project) to move a mailing list,
> without the possibility to manage it. Again with your friends today at TDF.
>
>
>
>
>
> and who has long championed the goal of not only helping thru education
>> new contributors but also of using education to promote FOSS,
>>
>
>
> How can you pretend that ? Since you are in the middle, we have no news
> from the Seneca College. Is that the contribution you mean ?
>
>
> And Yes: in OpenOffice.org, only you found the money to found the expenses
> for attending conferences. So it was easy for you to say what you want.
>
> Worse: I watched all the conferences, and in two years, you NEVER
> mentioned the Education Project goals (the one we wrote at
> http://education.openoffice.**org <http://education.openoffice.org> ) ,
> or even my name nor Alexandro one in all the presentations you did about
> the Education Project.
>
> You simply represented yourself (I'd say your company), but not the
> Education Project, and I'd advertise the Apache people to not believe
> everything you pretend.
>
>
> Important: I'd mention that Alexandro Colorado was a very good and trusted
> ambassador of Education Project
> .
>
>
>
> OOo and the ODF, I naturally think it's vital to have it.
>>
>> But what would be its remit?
>>
>> I would suggest we clarify goals. I would also like for us to work,
>> whenever possible, with Apache's extant efforts in this area, and with
>> cousin projects, like Mozilla. The more we team up, coordinate, collaborate,
>>
>
>
> The problem is that you acted as a proxy, not sharing the information with
> active people. It was a cancer for the Education project, because nobody
> was informed of what you told, what you did.
>
> As summary, I'd suggest Apache people to stay extremely prudent with you,
> and invite them to wait for proofs.
>
>
>
> Eric Bachard
>
>
>
> --
> qɔᴉɹə
> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/**index.php/Main_Page<http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page>
> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 19 nov. 11 à 06:29, Louis Suárez-Potts a écrit :
> As the guy who created the education project on OOo,
As admin : you added one project. But everybody knows you
systematicvaly were admin of everything in OpenOffice.org. Everybody
knows that nobody can be lead of several projects like you were,
say .... seriously.
Back to the Education side, you even did obstruction when we started
to improve thing, with your friends, who today moved to the TDF.
Worse : you did everything to avoid people to see their expenses
founded, to attend conferences.
There was always money for you, even for the (crappy) Community
Council doing the fest at Bruxelles, with people today at TDF, and
obviously no result ... (everything is in the archives).
Another fact: you forced us (Education Project) to move a mailing
list, without the possibility to manage it. Again with your friends
today at TDF.
> and who has long championed the goal of not only helping thru
> education new contributors but also of using education to promote
> FOSS,
How can you pretend that ? Since you are in the middle, we have no
news from the Seneca College. Is that the contribution you mean ?
And Yes: in OpenOffice.org, only you found the money to found the
expenses for attending conferences. So it was easy for you to say
what you want.
Worse: I watched all the conferences, and in two years, you NEVER
mentioned the Education Project goals (the one we wrote at http://
education.openoffice.org ) , or even my name nor Alexandro one in
all the presentations you did about the Education Project.
You simply represented yourself (I'd say your company), but not the
Education Project, and I'd advertise the Apache people to not believe
everything you pretend.
Important: I'd mention that Alexandro Colorado was a very good and
trusted ambassador of Education Project
.
> OOo and the ODF, I naturally think it's vital to have it.
>
> But what would be its remit?
>
> I would suggest we clarify goals. I would also like for us to work,
> whenever possible, with Apache's extant efforts in this area, and
> with cousin projects, like Mozilla. The more we team up,
> coordinate, collaborate,
The problem is that you acted as a proxy, not sharing the information
with active people. It was a cancer for the Education project,
because nobody was informed of what you told, what you did.
As summary, I'd suggest Apache people to stay extremely prudent with
you, and invite them to wait for proofs.
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
As the guy who created the education project on OOo, and who has long championed the goal of not only helping thru education new contributors but also of using education to promote FOSS, OOo and the ODF, I naturally think it's vital to have it.
But what would be its remit?
I would suggest we clarify goals. I would also like for us to work, whenever possible, with Apache's extant efforts in this area, and with cousin projects, like Mozilla. The more we team up, coordinate, collaborate, the more beer (not just speech) will be free.
Louis
(Nonsense words? iPad's spellchecker.)
-- Louis Suárez-Potts
On 2011-11-18, at 15:53, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> +1 on addition of Education
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eric b [mailto:eric.bachard@free.fr]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 18 nov. 11 à 20:40, Dave Fisher a écrit :
>
> [ ... ]
>> The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
>> Programming
>> Marketing
>> Quality Assurance
>> Graphics and Art
>> Writing
>> Helping Users
>> User Experience
>> Monetary Donations
>> Language Communities
>>
>> I think most of the categories should be kept.
>>
>
>
> If I can, I'd add the Education Project : I think we shouldn't
> neglect how to attract and mentor newcomers and young devs, and the
> Education side.
>
> Ask LibreOffice people: they copied the Education Project methods
> welcoming devs, introducing easy hacks, and there are very good results.
>
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>
> --
> qɔᴉɹə
> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
>
>
>
>
>
RE: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1 on addition of Education
-----Original Message-----
From: eric b [mailto:eric.bachard@free.fr]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Hi,
Le 18 nov. 11 à 20:40, Dave Fisher a écrit :
[ ... ]
> The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
> Programming
> Marketing
> Quality Assurance
> Graphics and Art
> Writing
> Helping Users
> User Experience
> Monetary Donations
> Language Communities
>
> I think most of the categories should be kept.
>
If I can, I'd add the Education Project : I think we shouldn't
neglect how to attract and mentor newcomers and young devs, and the
Education side.
Ask LibreOffice people: they copied the Education Project methods
welcoming devs, introducing easy hacks, and there are very good results.
Regards,
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 18 nov. 11 à 20:40, Dave Fisher a écrit :
> The site says "Participate" this what the pages describe and what
> the rewrite should be.
>
> The subdomain and OOo / Collabnet / Kenai project is contributing.
> contributing.openoffice.org can have a permanent redirection
> wherever we decide. We can reduce all links to the old site to the
> index of the new Participate Page(s).
>
> The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
> Programming
> Marketing
> Quality Assurance
> Graphics and Art
> Writing
> Helping Users
> User Experience
> Monetary Donations
> Language Communities
>
> I think most of the categories should be kept.
>
If I can, I'd add the Education Project : I think we shouldn't
neglect how to attract and mentor newcomers and young devs, and the
Education side.
Ask LibreOffice people: they copied the Education Project methods
welcoming devs, introducing easy hacks, and there are very good results.
Regards,
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 18, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One
>>> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit
>>> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
>>>>
>>>> On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed
>>> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
>>>>
>>>> Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
>>> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
>>> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and
>>> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move
>>> to the ooo-site tree.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
>>> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
>>> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
>>>
>>> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
>>> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
>>> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
>>>
>>
>> Rob--
>>
>> I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going to
>> follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects" tab is
>> now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but I'm not
>> understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing "participate "
>> link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
>>
>> In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a "contribute"
>> page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to contribute/participate,
>> so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
>>
>> I think you are making a distinction between participating and contributing
>> (?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
>> contributions?
>>
>
> In English, participate means to take part in. Contribute means to
> give something (including money, time, resources, etc.) for a
> charitable purpose. So anyone who participates in the project is also
> contributing to the project via their time.. But not everyone who
> contributes is also participating. For example, if you just donate
> via Paypal, then you are contributing, but not participating.
The site says "Participate" this what the pages describe and what the rewrite should be.
The subdomain and OOo / Collabnet / Kenai project is contributing. contributing.openoffice.org can have a permanent redirection wherever we decide. We can reduce all links to the old site to the index of the new Participate Page(s).
The c.oo.o site currently has the following categories.
Programming
Marketing
Quality Assurance
Graphics and Art
Writing
Helping Users
User Experience
Monetary Donations
Language Communities
I think most of the categories should be kept.
There is also a guideline. This should be replaced with an introduction to the Apache Way. There should be concrete examples of how users can find a ways to participate in the project within each category.
Programming
ooo-dev, svn, builds, ...
Marketing
ooo-marketing, ...
Quality Assurance
Bugzilla, ...
Graphics and Art
Logos, icons, fonts, skins, ...
Writing
Apache CMS, ODFAuthors, api docs, ...
Helping Users
ooo-users, Forums
User Experience
?
Monetary Donations
ASF donations and sponsorship links.
Language Communities
Language Packs, N-L communities, what to do to add support for a language to AOO.
NL Mailing lists, NL Forums.
Apache Software Foundation
The Apache Way, Project Governance, ...
The more I think about this the more I think these are podling pages.
Regards,
Dave
>
>>
>>> 2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
>>> volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
>>> help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
>>> you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
>>> a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
>>>
>>
>> OK, in this sense, perhaps the existing contributing.html can be used with
>> changes.
>> Again, I'm confused about your initial distinctions I guess.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
>>> they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
>>> (ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
>>> be overwhelming for newbies.
>>>
>>> With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
>>> these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
>>> volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
>>>
>>> As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
>>> certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
>>> link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
>>> the relevant Apache page?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden
>>> overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete
>>> checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is
>>> very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for
>>> volunteers.
>>>>
>>>> HTH, but I also have a full time job...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>> by the way its animals are treated."
>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One
>> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit
>> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
>> >
>> > On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed
>> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
>> >
>> > Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
>> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
>> >
>> > I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
>> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and
>> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move
>> to the ooo-site tree.
>> >
>>
>> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
>> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
>> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
>>
>> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
>> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
>> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
>>
>
> Rob--
>
> I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going to
> follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects" tab is
> now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but I'm not
> understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing "participate "
> link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
>
> In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a "contribute"
> page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to contribute/participate,
> so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
>
> I think you are making a distinction between participating and contributing
> (?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
> contributions?
>
In English, participate means to take part in. Contribute means to
give something (including money, time, resources, etc.) for a
charitable purpose. So anyone who participates in the project is also
contributing to the project via their time.. But not everyone who
contributes is also participating. For example, if you just donate
via Paypal, then you are contributing, but not participating.
>
>> 2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
>> volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
>> help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
>> you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
>> a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
>>
>
> OK, in this sense, perhaps the existing contributing.html can be used with
> changes.
> Again, I'm confused about your initial distinctions I guess.
>
>
>
>>
>> I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
>> they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
>> (ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
>> be overwhelming for newbies.
>>
>> With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
>> these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
>> volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
>>
>> As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
>> certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
>> link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
>> the relevant Apache page?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden
>> overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete
>> checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is
>> very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for
>> volunteers.
>> >
>> > HTH, but I also have a full time job...
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Dave
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 18, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Clarifying an important point again...
>
> On 2011-11-18 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> ...snip...
>> I'd also also like for the fundraising to be clearly identified with
>> the project. Right now, we use SPI and—not sure if "still" is
>> relevant—Team OOo. (It probably is not; and probably a foundation or
>> more humble and simpler bank account possessed of a humanoid
>> treasurer, would be sufficient and even gooder.)
>
> Fundraising at the ASF is handled centrally, on behalf of all Apache projects. And no, neither SPI nor Team OOo are involved with fundraising for any Apache project; I'm working to address that misconception shortly. The only group at the ASF that does fundraising is found on the fundraising@ privately archived mailing list, or on the main Donate/Sponsor pages:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
>
> Obviously all Apache projects link to the main fundraising pages, and the AOOo podling is welcome to have it's own explanations of why it's important to donate to the ASF along with a link to the donation page.
>
> It is an important to-do for the PPMC to remove any external donation buttons or direct links from any of our websites, as well.
Alexandro has begun making the necessary changes in the ES site.
Regards,
Dave
>
> - Shane
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Clarifying an important point again...
On 2011-11-18 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
...snip...
> I'd also also like for the fundraising to be clearly identified with
> the project. Right now, we use SPI and—not sure if "still" is
> relevant—Team OOo. (It probably is not; and probably a foundation or
> more humble and simpler bank account possessed of a humanoid
> treasurer, would be sufficient and even gooder.)
Fundraising at the ASF is handled centrally, on behalf of all Apache
projects. And no, neither SPI nor Team OOo are involved with
fundraising for any Apache project; I'm working to address that
misconception shortly. The only group at the ASF that does fundraising
is found on the fundraising@ privately archived mailing list, or on the
main Donate/Sponsor pages:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
Obviously all Apache projects link to the main fundraising pages, and
the AOOo podling is welcome to have it's own explanations of why it's
important to donate to the ASF along with a link to the donation page.
It is an important to-do for the PPMC to remove any external donation
buttons or direct links from any of our websites, as well.
- Shane
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
(Nonsense words? iPad's spellchecker.)
-- Louis Suárez-Potts
On 2011-11-18, at 18:50, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Louis, I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
> to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
> under a link that read "I want to participate". That was my only
> point. I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
> participation
Of course, but I was using the misinterpretation as a springboard: I do not want to repeat the old mistakes. The problem here was lack of clarity of identity and purpose. That's all right, usually, but as we lacked for many years the wherewithal to work all the angles, we ended up losing a lot. Hence my interest in focus.
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
(Nonsense words? iPad's spellchecker.)
-- Louis Suárez-Potts
On 2011-11-18, at 21:07, MiguelAngel <ma...@miguelangel.mobi> wrote:
> El 19/11/11 0:50, Rob Weir escribió:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
>> <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
>>> what counted as "participate" and "contribute". And I was raked over
>>> the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
>>> conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
>>> Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
>>> the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
>>> once the market was established.
>>>
>>> So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
>>> the strategy of yore and expand the market?
>>>
>> Hi Louis, I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
>> to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
>> under a link that read "I want to participate". That was my only
>> point. I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
>> participation. We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds.
>>
>> -Rob
> Hi Louis, Rob,
> Please, who is ** we **?
> Maybe can be misunderstood.
> Miguel Ángel
Dunno, but it probably includes you, unless you can present an argument why it oughtn't. :-)
>
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by MiguelAngel <ma...@miguelangel.mobi>.
El 19/11/11 15:16, Shane Curcuru escribió:
> I can actually answer part of this question somewhat definitively:
>
> On 2011-11-18 9:07 PM, MiguelAngel wrote:
>> El 19/11/11 0:50, Rob Weir escribió:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
>>> <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
>>>> what counted as "participate" and "contribute". And I was raked over
>>>> the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
>>>> conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
>>>> Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
>>>> the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
>>>> once the market was established.
>>>>
>>>> So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
>>>> the strategy of yore and expand the market?
>>>>
>>> Hi Louis, I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
>>> to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
>>> under a link that read "I want to participate". That was my only
>>> point. I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
>>> participation. We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>> Hi Louis, Rob,
>> Please, who is ** we **?
>> Maybe can be misunderstood.
>> Miguel Ángel
>
> The we in "We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds" refers to the
> Apache OpenOffice PPMC and it's set of active committers on this
> mailing list.
>
> I think this is another significant difference between how the
> previous OpenOffice.org project ran, and how the Apache OpenOffice
> podling runs. From discussion here and elsewhere, it's clear that in
> the past there were a *lot* of people who claimed various
> relationships with the previous OpenOffice.org project. Then, as now,
> it wasn't often clear what, specifically, those relationships were, or
> who could authoritatively speak on behalf of the project (well, in
> that case, various projects, like education, calc, marketing, etc. etc.)
>
> For Apache OpenOffice, the governance is clear: PPMC members vote on
> releases and new committers, and may, in consultation with the PPMC,
> speak about the project with some authority. All committers may
> checkin code and make proposals for the direction of the project.
>
> Contributors on Apache OpenOffice are welcomed, and encouraged to
> participate more by submitting patches, ideas, proposals, and whatever
> else you can think of that would help. But they are not officially
> part of the project and may not speak on the project's behalf.
>
> Separately, the idea of "admins", "leads", and various other titles
> from the previous OpenOffice.org project is no more. Apache
> OpenOffice has PPMC members, committers, and now - while it's in
> incubation - mentors. There are no other titles normally given out at
> Apache projects, nor are there *any* long-term titles for Apache
> projects other than a PMC chair (which is after AOO graduates).
>
> Justin Erenkrantz' presentation about the Apache Way has a great way
> to think about leadership in Apache projects:
>
> "Whomever has the best idea 'leads'... until a better idea is
> presented to the group, and then that new person 'leads'."
>
> - Shane, AOO mentor
Hi Shane, many thanks, once more a clear and detailed answer.
But let me express an oponion. Maybe cultural differences, but "we"
("our trademarks" in others recent mails) sounds, something possesive
and not much clear. "We" can represent different groups depending on the
subjective intention from whom is using it.
Seem to me more correct, to use the choosed name "Apache OpenOffice need
and welcome volunteers of all kinds" or "Apache OpenOffice PPMC", as the
case, at least in the public comunications like is the web page and the
abreviation 'AOO' or 'PPMC' for example in the ML, like in your
signature. Or maybe "Are needed and welcome volunteers of all kinds",
could be a better expression.
Not only in relation to this, but even in the english pages of the
proyect it is important to think that many-many people like me, for whom
the english is not their primary language, can read it, and know nothing
about internal structure of the proyect.
As less possibilities of interpretation, more right understanding by the
readers.
Miguel Ángel.
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
I can actually answer part of this question somewhat definitively:
On 2011-11-18 9:07 PM, MiguelAngel wrote:
> El 19/11/11 0:50, Rob Weir escribió:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
>> <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
>>> what counted as "participate" and "contribute". And I was raked over
>>> the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
>>> conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
>>> Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
>>> the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
>>> once the market was established.
>>>
>>> So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
>>> the strategy of yore and expand the market?
>>>
>> Hi Louis, I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
>> to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
>> under a link that read "I want to participate". That was my only
>> point. I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
>> participation. We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds.
>>
>> -Rob
> Hi Louis, Rob,
> Please, who is ** we **?
> Maybe can be misunderstood.
> Miguel Ángel
The we in "We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds" refers to the
Apache OpenOffice PPMC and it's set of active committers on this mailing
list.
I think this is another significant difference between how the previous
OpenOffice.org project ran, and how the Apache OpenOffice podling runs.
From discussion here and elsewhere, it's clear that in the past there
were a *lot* of people who claimed various relationships with the
previous OpenOffice.org project. Then, as now, it wasn't often clear
what, specifically, those relationships were, or who could
authoritatively speak on behalf of the project (well, in that case,
various projects, like education, calc, marketing, etc. etc.)
For Apache OpenOffice, the governance is clear: PPMC members vote on
releases and new committers, and may, in consultation with the PPMC,
speak about the project with some authority. All committers may checkin
code and make proposals for the direction of the project.
Contributors on Apache OpenOffice are welcomed, and encouraged to
participate more by submitting patches, ideas, proposals, and whatever
else you can think of that would help. But they are not officially part
of the project and may not speak on the project's behalf.
Separately, the idea of "admins", "leads", and various other titles from
the previous OpenOffice.org project is no more. Apache OpenOffice has
PPMC members, committers, and now - while it's in incubation - mentors.
There are no other titles normally given out at Apache projects, nor
are there *any* long-term titles for Apache projects other than a PMC
chair (which is after AOO graduates).
Justin Erenkrantz' presentation about the Apache Way has a great way to
think about leadership in Apache projects:
"Whomever has the best idea 'leads'... until a better idea is presented
to the group, and then that new person 'leads'."
- Shane, AOO mentor
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by MiguelAngel <ma...@miguelangel.mobi>.
El 19/11/11 0:50, Rob Weir escribió:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
> <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
>> what counted as "participate" and "contribute". And I was raked over
>> the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
>> conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
>> Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
>> the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
>> once the market was established.
>>
>> So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
>> the strategy of yore and expand the market?
>>
> Hi Louis, I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
> to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
> under a link that read "I want to participate". That was my only
> point. I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
> participation. We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds.
>
> -Rob
Hi Louis, Rob,
Please, who is ** we **?
Maybe can be misunderstood.
Miguel Ángel
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
<ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
> what counted as "participate" and "contribute". And I was raked over
> the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
> conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
> Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
> the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
> once the market was established.
>
> So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
> the strategy of yore and expand the market?
>
Hi Louis, I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
under a link that read "I want to participate". That was my only
point. I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
participation. We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds.
-Rob
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
More shortly—have been in meetings galore for the last day… now
staking tock of my shelved reeds.
But...
On 18 November 2011 12:36, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One
>> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit
>> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
>> >
>> > On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed
>> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
>> >
>> > Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
>> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
>> >
>> > I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
>> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and
>> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move
>> to the ooo-site tree.
>> >
>>
>> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
>> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
>> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
>>
>> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
>> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
>> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
>>
>
> Rob--
>
> I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going to
> follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects" tab is
> now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but I'm not
> understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing "participate "
> link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
>
> In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a "contribute"
> page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to contribute/participate,
> so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
>
> I think you are making a distinction between participating and contributing
> (?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
> contributions?
>
>
>> 2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
>> volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
>> help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
>> you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
>> a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
>>
>
> OK, in this sense, perhaps the existing contributing.html can be used with
> changes.
> Again, I'm confused about your initial distinctions I guess.
>
I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
what counted as "participate" and "contribute". And I was raked over
the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
once the market was established.
So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
the strategy of yore and expand the market?
I'd say, we've done that and we need now to focus on sophisticated
development while encouraging and providing space for regular
contributions; participations—however defined but mostly likely along
the lines of, "using" and "expressing like" and so on and throwing a)
parties and b) competitors' stuff out the window—also strongly
encouraged.
But our focus here, if I am not incorrect, is development, yes?
That leaves open the problem—or delight—of working with the, uhm, 99
percent who like OOo but are not developers :-) On OOo, we created a
slew of such projects to encourage their participation, as evangelism
is important, and as OOo is fairly unique—or was—in that it was
user-focused.
However, I'd submit that it's not Apache's remit to work with this
crowdsource but rather just the source. And so accordingly, the
opening is for other satellite organizations that would be entrusted
to use the trademark (be approved by Apache or its delegate) and
further develop the limitless regional and also cloudy communities.
That all said, the text should be rewritten to focus on development
(as Rob wrote) and to then suggest a wiki (or so) for other sorts of
valuable contributions. (I persist in believing that in a real open
source endeavour, the democratic if not entirely meritocratic (how to
judge? even pragmatics fail us here) participatory urges that make OOo
(and its spawn) so great.
>
>
>>
>> I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
>> they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
>> (ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
>> be overwhelming for newbies.
>>
>> With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
>> these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
>> volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
>>
>> As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
>> certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
>> link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
>> the relevant Apache page?
>>
I'd also also like for the fundraising to be clearly identified with
the project. Right now, we use SPI and—not sure if "still" is
relevant—Team OOo. (It probably is not; and probably a foundation or
more humble and simpler bank account possessed of a humanoid
treasurer, would be sufficient and even gooder.)
>> -Rob
>>
>> > The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden
>> overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete
>> checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is
>> very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for
>> volunteers.
>> >
>> > HTH, but I also have a full time job...
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Dave
>>
>
>
-louis>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One
> area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit
> ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
> >
> > On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed
> from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
> >
> > Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this
> rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
> >
> > I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called
> "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and
> as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move
> to the ooo-site tree.
> >
>
> Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
> simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
> the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
>
> 1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
> new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
> think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
>
Rob--
I'm not following you here. It's true that of course we are not going to
follow the former "project" hierarchy (lucky for use the "Projects" tab is
now gone on the setup site) that existed within OpenOffice.org, but I'm not
understanding what you’re trying to say about the existing "participate "
link on the home page that transfers to contributing.html.
In the legacy OOo sense, the "participate" link jumped to a "contribute"
page, contribute.html, which listed a few ways to contribute/participate,
so in this sense, I think it meant the same thing (?).
I think you are making a distinction between participating and contributing
(?) based on ???? actual participation -- coding, etc -- vs monetary
contributions?
> 2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
> volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
> help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
> you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
> a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
>
OK, in this sense, perhaps the existing contributing.html can be used with
changes.
Again, I'm confused about your initial distinctions I guess.
>
> I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
> they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
> (ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
> be overwhelming for newbies.
>
> With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
> these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
> volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
>
> As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
> certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
> link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
> the relevant Apache page?
>
> -Rob
>
> > The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden
> overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete
> checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is
> very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for
> volunteers.
> >
> > HTH, but I also have a full time job...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> There are several parts to the migration of openoffice.org website. One area that needs attention is rewriting contributing.openoffice.org to fit ASF and AOO policies. (Policies may need to be written and discussed.)
>
> On the current main www.openoffice.org page, contributing is accessed from the fifth button - "I want to participate in OpenOffice.org"
>
> Volunteers are needed to take leadership of and contribute to this rewrite. Any committer can do this work.
>
> I suggest that a directory be created within the podling site called "contributing". Within that directory there should be an index.mdtext and as many subpages as required. Once completed, I can do an svn copy or move to the ooo-site tree.
>
Before actually doing the work, let me propose a radical
simplification. AOO is organizationally flat, so we don't have all
the destination sub-projects of the legacy OOo website.
1) The "I want to participate" link on the main page goes to a single
new page. No need to be at contribute.openoffice.org. In fact, I
think I'd avoid that since to participate != to contribute.
2) The new page has a simple couple of paragraphs. We welcome
volunteers of all sorts. These are the functional areas where we need
help (taken from those already listed). If you want more information
you can browser our project website (the podling site) here, or send
a note to our project list at ooo-dev.i.a.o.
I would not advise them to subscribe initially. Depending on what
they are interested in we might point them to a specific list
(ooo-marketing) or to the forums. I think the full ooo-dev list can
be overwhelming for newbies.
With this approach, the PPMC would be responsible for following up on
these incoming volunteer notices and helping to orient the new
volunteers. In a sense we would become mini-mentors.
As for the fundraising link, I don't know where to put that. I
certainly would not expect to see it behind a "I want to participate"
link. Maybe a new tab labeled "Contribute" and then have that link to
the relevant Apache page?
-Rob
> The reason I suggest doing the work on the podling site is due to hidden overhead when using the Apache CMS Bookmarklet. Each user does a complete checkout of a site's tree. The podling site is small and the ooo-site is very huge. Using the podling site will be much more satisfying for volunteers.
>
> HTH, but I also have a full time job...
>
> Regards,
> Dave
Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
A general observation: sooner is better. Personally, I would rather see
possibly incomplete pages hosted on ASF hardware (and with our
trademarks, terms, etc.) sooner rather than waiting for everything to be
completed on the staging site for some grand migration.
It's been more than long enough to let the world see the new versions of
various pages, even if they're not as pretty as we might want yet.
- Shane