[discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

If requested, the ASF provides committee private repositories for 
committees.  Traditionally, these have been limited to subversion, but 
recently git has been added as an option.

This would allow committee members to collaborate on documents outside 
of public view.  Would there be a need for this?  One possible use for 
this would be for development of board reports that may contain private 
sections.

- Sam Ruby

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

["Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>]

On 7/14/2019 2:07 PM, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> On 2019-07-13 10:59 a.m., Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Wikis also fall.into a middle ground.  For me, they do not support low
>> vision users either.  They don't support file storage and the version
>> control in messaging that I have seen is onerous to find minor changes.
>
> Can you explain this concern in greater detail? I can zoom in on our
> wiki with my browser and read it quite well with poor vision, even
> from farther away if necessary (a few lines at a time).
The needs change depending on the task: Images versus text versus tables
versus calculations.

For example, it can take me an hour to find a /> or ; out of place that
used to take seconds.  And a screen reader with code can be painful to
say the least.

With a spreadsheet, I can move cells.  With something freeform like our
financial reports, it's painful.  I can't read down a column.

Atlassian with Jira and Confluence at least have VPATs but usually it's
the use of the wrong tool for the job.  For example, the budget work in
SVN with python scripts to re-tally is a bit of insanity for me. Not
only is it hard to read but I couldn't fix a $2K error because the lift
was so high.

> If you're poorly sighted enough that you need a screen reader, I've
> also suggested a plugin that can be used for full 508/A11Y support,
> including full screen reader support. I'm sure we can find the money
> for that (or ask the board as a legitimate D&I expense).

I would not suggest it for my needs.  I find wikis so frustrating to
edit that I try and spend my time elsewhere.  But yes, I am schedule A
from the Virginia Department for the Blind and Visual Impaired i.e. I
have a white cane and have been trained in it's use.  I'm blessed to be
able to work but I use a lot of compensatory techniques.


>
>> I recommend we formally consider a recommendation around better, more
>> inclusive tools.  Tools like Google G Suite or Microsoft o365, *both of
>> which are donated to us*, are far more widely used and better suited for
>> non-programmers and coders alike.
>
> -1, because it is more challenging to manage access to these resources
> (they are not directly under our LDAP restrictions) and thus are less
> under Infra's ability to manage long-term. Those donations can also be
> pulled at any time.

Actually, Daniel Ruggeri did a POC for the LDAP integration.

Additionally, I don't believe it's a legitimate concern that Microsoft
or Google will pull these donations. The scope of their programs is
gargantuan.

> How do these tools work better for your low vision *specifically*?

Example: Try navigating a multi column wall of numbers like our
financial reports on the monthly board meeting from the treasurer.

Now try the same data in an XLS file or Google Sheet where you can hit
down arrow to read a column.

Additionally, go read the "diffs" from confluence when the incubator
reports are filed.  It's like looking for a needle in a haystack. 

Regards,
KAM

-- 
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>]

Hi Kevin,

One specific question:

On 2019-07-13 10:59 a.m., Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Wikis also fall.into a middle ground.  For me, they do not support low
> vision users either.  They don't support file storage and the version
> control in messaging that I have seen is onerous to find minor changes.

Can you explain this concern in greater detail? I can zoom in on our 
wiki with my browser and read it quite well with poor vision, even from 
farther away if necessary (a few lines at a time).

If you're poorly sighted enough that you need a screen reader, I've also 
suggested a plugin that can be used for full 508/A11Y support, including 
full screen reader support. I'm sure we can find the money for that (or 
ask the board as a legitimate D&I expense).

We probably also have access to engineers at Atlassian who could comment 
further here, and address their strategy.

> I recommend we formally consider a recommendation around better, more
> inclusive tools.  Tools like Google G Suite or Microsoft o365, *both of
> which are donated to us*, are far more widely used and better suited for
> non-programmers and coders alike.

-1, because it is more challenging to manage access to these resources 
(they are not directly under our LDAP restrictions) and thus are less 
under Infra's ability to manage long-term. Those donations can also be 
pulled at any time.

How do these tools work better for your low vision *specifically*?

-Joan

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>]

I'd like to second the concern that svn in particular is not a good tool for any but coding professionals.

For more insight into barriers faced by non-coders to use of svn, just ask Sally.

I'm not sure what the solution is but the foundation is moving toward use of Google G Suite for many things that svn is ill suited for.

I'm not personally invested in G Suite because of the permissions difficulties but these might be mitigated by our infra team if we decide that wider use of such tools would be of benefit.

Regards,

Craig

> On Jul 13, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Using revision control systems like svn and git are tools with a high
> barrier to use and a proven track record of problems with non-coders.  They
> are programming tools being misused to run a corporation or committee.
> 
> When front-ended by great tools like whimsy, they can be very useful.
> However, without that they have proven difficult for the foundation
> including fundraising, press, accounting and planners.
> 
> They are about as UN-inclusive as it gets for a choice of tooling.  It is
> folly to promote their continued use.  Doing so will continue this culture,
> unconsciously promote or not, of "the ASF only want programmers."
> 
> Wikis also fall.into a middle ground.  For me, they do not support low
> vision users either.  They don't support file storage and the version
> control in messaging that I have seen is onerous to find minor changes.
> 
> I recommend we formally consider a recommendation around better, more
> inclusive tools.  Tools like Google G Suite or Microsoft o365, *both of
> which are donated to us*, are far more widely used and better suited for
> non-programmers and coders alike.
> 
> I suggest that both are considered and an outreachy intern perhaps mentored
> to fnalize our ldap integration for gsuite and o365.
> 
> Then we can very easily create documents and store items in a way
> non-programmers can use.
> 
> So am -1 to use a private svn and recommend this alternative expansion of
> non programming tools is investigated (even though I cannot vote).
> 
> I am happy to be a co-mentor in a limited capacity to the intern of such a
> project for ldap integration.
> 
> Regards, KAM
> 
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 00:42 Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/13/19 6:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>> HI,
>>> 
>>> JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and
>> ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a projects
>> mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and all documents
>> under that will inherent these permissions.
>> 
>> +1, I think a restricted cwiki area for preparing reports is a better
>> option. It would also mean you could prepare something within the PMC,
>> then "publish" it in place by changing the restrictions once the report
>> is ready.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

["Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>]

Using revision control systems like svn and git are tools with a high
barrier to use and a proven track record of problems with non-coders.  They
are programming tools being misused to run a corporation or committee.

When front-ended by great tools like whimsy, they can be very useful.
However, without that they have proven difficult for the foundation
including fundraising, press, accounting and planners.

They are about as UN-inclusive as it gets for a choice of tooling.  It is
folly to promote their continued use.  Doing so will continue this culture,
unconsciously promote or not, of "the ASF only want programmers."

Wikis also fall.into a middle ground.  For me, they do not support low
vision users either.  They don't support file storage and the version
control in messaging that I have seen is onerous to find minor changes.

I recommend we formally consider a recommendation around better, more
inclusive tools.  Tools like Google G Suite or Microsoft o365, *both of
which are donated to us*, are far more widely used and better suited for
non-programmers and coders alike.

I suggest that both are considered and an outreachy intern perhaps mentored
to fnalize our ldap integration for gsuite and o365.

Then we can very easily create documents and store items in a way
non-programmers can use.

So am -1 to use a private svn and recommend this alternative expansion of
non programming tools is investigated (even though I cannot vote).

I am happy to be a co-mentor in a limited capacity to the intern of such a
project for ldap integration.

Regards, KAM

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 00:42 Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 7/13/19 6:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > HI,
> >
> > JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and
> ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a projects
> mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and all documents
> under that will inherent these permissions.
>
> +1, I think a restricted cwiki area for preparing reports is a better
> option. It would also mean you could prepare something within the PMC,
> then "publish" it in place by changing the restrictions once the report
> is ready.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
>
>

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>]

Hit reply too soon...

On 2019-07-13 11:08 a.m., Joan Touzet wrote:
> On 2019-07-13 3:41 a.m., Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> On 7/13/19 6:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>> HI,
>>>
>>> JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and 
>>> ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a 
>>> projects mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and 
>>> all documents under that will inherent these permissions.
>>
>> +1, I think a restricted cwiki area for preparing reports is a better 
>> option. It would also mean you could prepare something within the PMC, 
>> then "publish" it in place by changing the restrictions once the 
>> report is ready.
> 
> +1 as well. This is a lot easier than dealing with a 2-phase approach of 
> having to write a document in a repo, then moving it to the wiki or a 
> static webpage. If we have to support code,

...then a repo would be best.


> If there are 508/A11Y concerns re:Confluence, we should look at 
> requesting Infra to install:
> 
> https://marketplace.atlassian.com/apps/1216435/unstoppable-for-confluence?hosting=server&tab=overview 
> 
> 
> to ensure our use of Confluence does not place a barrier for anyone who 
> has vision limits. The video makes it look like it supports JIRA, too.
> 
> -Joan

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>]

On 2019-07-13 3:41 a.m., Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 7/13/19 6:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> HI,
>>
>> JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and 
>> ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a 
>> projects mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and 
>> all documents under that will inherent these permissions.
> 
> +1, I think a restricted cwiki area for preparing reports is a better 
> option. It would also mean you could prepare something within the PMC, 
> then "publish" it in place by changing the restrictions once the report 
> is ready.

+1 as well. This is a lot easier than dealing with a 2-phase approach of 
having to write a document in a repo, then moving it to the wiki or a 
static webpage. If we have to support code,

If there are 508/A11Y concerns re:Confluence, we should look at 
requesting Infra to install:

https://marketplace.atlassian.com/apps/1216435/unstoppable-for-confluence?hosting=server&tab=overview

to ensure our use of Confluence does not place a barrier for anyone who 
has vision limits. The video makes it look like it supports JIRA, too.

-Joan

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>]

+1 there is no reason for any of this process to be private, under normal circumstances. On the rare occasion something ne ds to be private this can be discussed on the private list

---

Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.

________________________________
From: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 6:11:53 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

I actually have a contrary point of view on this.

Most of the content of a report is public material and I have found that
having the entire community build the report (as opposed to just the PMC)
can be a very good community building exercise. Moreover, it is useful to
start the next report at the start of the reporting period so that info can
be added as things happen.

Only a tiny fraction of the information is ever important to keep private.
The fraction is roughly the same as with the mailing lists ... very little
needs to be on private@



On Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 12:41 AM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 7/13/19 6:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > HI,
> >
> > JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and
> ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a projects
> mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and all documents
> under that will inherent these permissions.
>
> +1, I think a restricted cwiki area for preparing reports is a better
> option. It would also mean you could prepare something within the PMC,
> then "publish" it in place by changing the restrictions once the report
> is ready.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
>
>

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

I actually have a contrary point of view on this.

Most of the content of a report is public material and I have found that
having the entire community build the report (as opposed to just the PMC)
can be a very good community building exercise. Moreover, it is useful to
start the next report at the start of the reporting period so that info can
be added as things happen.

Only a tiny fraction of the information is ever important to keep private.
The fraction is roughly the same as with the mailing lists ... very little
needs to be on private@



On Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 12:41 AM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 7/13/19 6:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > HI,
> >
> > JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and
> ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a projects
> mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and all documents
> under that will inherent these permissions.
>
> +1, I think a restricted cwiki area for preparing reports is a better
> option. It would also mean you could prepare something within the PMC,
> then "publish" it in place by changing the restrictions once the report
> is ready.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
>
>

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>]

On 7/13/19 6:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
> 
> JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a projects mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and all documents under that will inherent these permissions.

+1, I think a restricted cwiki area for preparing reports is a better 
option. It would also mean you could prepare something within the PMC, 
then "publish" it in place by changing the restrictions once the report 
is ready.

> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 

Re: [discuss] private repository for the committee?

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

HI,

JFYI - Wiki permissions can also be set up to allow PMC view/edit and ASF members view access which would be similar permisisons as a projects mailing list. There permissions can be set on a folder and all documents under that will inherent these permissions.

Thanks,
Justin