> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk] > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 8:54 AM > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org > > On 01/25/2013 11:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > > > > On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > > >> [ ] +1: I support this proposal > >> [ ] 0: I don't care > >> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because... > > > > -1 as stated. +1 in principle. > > > > IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new DNS > > entry for "modules-archive", it should live under a single > > hostname: maybe modules.apache.org/archive/ > > > > I can't access modules.humbedooh.com right now, but I'll take what's > > there as of secondary importance: it's presumably intended more as > > startingpoint than final product. > > > If people do not object to this, I believe we can accommodate your wish to > put it under /archive instead without having to resort to a new vote. > Anyone who's opposed to Nick's suggestion, please state so, or I will assume > that we can continue the voting with this addendum.
I don't mind either way, each has benefits/drawbacks. Each is easy to implement. Gav... > > Apologies for the test site not being available at the time, it has been fixed > now. > > And yes, it's a starting point. The whole point of this vote is to get _started_ > on moving away from something that is utterly dysfunctional, and towards > something that works and is simpler to manage. Once the voting is done, > assuming no one starts throwing vetoes about, I will start a new thread, > calling for ideas and suggestions on how to improve the new site, and as I've > stated earlier, I am looking for anyone who would like to contribute to > maintaining and improving the site. As it stands, we have Rich, Gavin, Jan > from Infrastructure (I hope/think) and myself doing moderation and > reviewing the processes, but we'd like more to join. > > With regards, > Daniel.
