Changed nav pane has been committed. Can continue with cosmetic changes, but at least we have the changes visible now. Phjuh.
Cheers, Nadya >-----Original Message----- >From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:34 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane > > >On Jan 18, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote: > >> Geir, >> Thanks for a prompt reply. I'm glad you're on the OK side :) > >By that I mean that the current menu as currently on the site is ok... > >> Specifics per your concerns: >> - ASF and Other Projects links - suggest that we add these to the >> General list > >ASF already was in the general list. Other Projects seems >appropriate for a community section. > >> - wiki - we have mobile data there and I don't see what's wrong with >> having it in the Documentation. > >I don't understand what you mean here. > >> - policy and guidelines: guidelines seems a gathering of multi-topic >> info, suggest that we restructure it, several ideas below. > >I agree we should restructure it. > >> >> <we're drifting toward issue (2 - some generic pages need >> improvement) > >> >> Current project guidelines content and suggestions: >> * People, Places, and Things: defines roles of committer, contributor, >> PMC (btw, is outdated) - can go into Who We Are (former committers' >> page) > >Why? > >> * Status: tells wrong N/A info about status files - should be removed > >Yes > >> * Voting: describes +1/-1 votes etc - can go into Policy or into >> Resolution guidelines > >No - contribution policy is something very special and specific to >this project, something no other ASF project has. I think that >mixing it with canonical ASF project governance concepts is wrong. > >> * Types of action items: defines types of issues by severity and >> specifics - can fit naturally into Issue Resolution Guidelines >> since it >> describes issues that are further resolved :) > >Don't agree. There are "big picture" issue governance, and detail >governance. > >> * When to commit a change: gives generics on comits; is info for >> committers only - can go into committers or Get Involved page or issue >> resolution since it explain issue resolution by patch commit > >could be > >> * Patch format: tips on how to create patches - fits into Get >> Involved, >> subheading How to Create and Submit A Patch or Enhancement. > >Yep > >> >> Cheers, >> Nadya >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:55 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane >>> >>> >>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> After a long-long pause, I'm restarting the thread about our website >>>> navigation menu and generic pages that require improvement. I hope >>>> that >>>> after the New Year all the emotions have boiled down and we can move >>>> over this quickly :) >>>> >>>> Key ideas that were gathered during the review of the sandbox >>>> copy of >>>> website: >>>> (1) navigation menu is mostly ok though several improvements are >>>> possible >>> >>> I'm in the "it's ok" camp. There are tweaks, but I still don't see >>> where major change is needed. >>> >>>> (2) some generic pages require improvement because they're outdated >> or >>>> do not contain required info or don't deliver their main idea >>>> clearly >>> >>> +1 >>> >>>> (3) starting page does not give a clear idea of where our project is >> - >>>> for a newcomer >>> >>> ? >>> >>>> Let's address these one by one. This letter is about (1) only. For >> (2) >>>> and (3), I'll send patches per page so that we don't miss anything >>>> during the review. >>>> >>>> For the nav pane, I've a patch ready and waiting for your >>>> approval to >>>> commit. If you are strongly against a change suggested, let's >>>> discuss >>>> this. New version: >>>> >>>> General >>>> * Home >>>> * License >>>> * Contribution Policy >>>> * Downloads >>>> * FAQ >>>> (removed references to ASF and project guidelines because the >>>> Guidelines >>>> actually have info on a number of very different topics, we can try >>>> and >>>> find a better place for them; having Policy *and* Guidelines >>>> confuses >>>> many people) >>> >>> We're an ASF project - please put the ASF link back. >>> >>> who has been confused by having "Contribution Policy" and "Project >>> Guidelines"? >>> >>>> >>>> Community >>>> * Get Involved >>>> * Who we are >>>> * Mailing Lists >>>> * Bug Tracker >>>> (removed Documentation (useless page), FAQ is above now, Wiki is in >>>> docs >>>> now, renamed Committers > Who we are (might not be the best name, >>>> but >>>> the page can be about PMC, committers and contributors, why only the >>>> committers?); moved JIRA to this list and renamed > Bug Tracker as >> the >>>> more generic term) >>> >>> Ok >>> >>>> >>>> Development >>>> * Source Code >>>> * Getting Started (link for contributors) >>>> * Project Roadmap >>>> * Resolution Guideline >>>> (removed How are we Doing (useless page), moved roadmap lower to >>>> make >>>> Source code stand out, removed Other projects (rarely used page), >>>> added >>>> Resolution guideline) >>> >>> We should keep the "Other Projects" and keep it up to date. Why are >>> Resolution Guidlines not in docs? >>> >>>> >>>> Documentation >>>> * Sitemap >>>> * Wiki >>>> * HDK >>>> * DRLVM >>>> * Class Libraries >>>> * Build-test Framework >>>> (renamed Subcomponents > Documentation; added sitemap (the file >> itself >>>> is under development now), added wiki link here, added HDK page >>>> (discussible, but hope to have a nice patch to describe our >>>> deliverable >>>> there); removed classlib status (outdated, we can have Wiki instead) >>> >>> Uh, I'm not a big fan of having important info on the Wiki. can we >>> put that back? I think it's important to have that kind of stuff in >>> one place, here on the site. >>> >>> geir >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> nadya
