After reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking in details I noticed it's
suggested to have a "Thanks" page
I looked at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Revised+Website+Structure+v2+-+Approved and noticed we have not a such page (@Emmanuel:
this is WIP for our current site replacement)
Maybe we could create one and put a link from the footer.
I notably read in the foundation link:
"May include a small third party logo for the donor or the goods, and may include a
simple HTML link back to the donor."
"May include historical donations that were actively used in the past, but are not
currently being used. These items should be marked as such."
I'm thinking about donated logos (HotWax and BrainFood), don't they deserve a special thanks? Of course other ideas may show up, maybe IntelliJ and
Packt Publishing but they rather donate at the ASF level...
Because the <<"Who We Are" Pages>> section suggests
"Should include an overview or links to other ways that newcomers can participate in the project. Think of these as both an introduction to who is
currently in the project, as well as a welcoming way to show future contributors how to join."
I have added a link to the "OFBiz Contributors Best Practices" page. While modifying the PMC page, I noticed the ASF committers map does not work
well. It shows all committers and not only OFBiz's despite the project=Apache OFBiz parameter. I will check and ask about that
I wondered about "Should not include corporate affiliations of actual contributors." but because of "PMCs are free to allow including corporate
affiliations, but should be consistent in their policy for all committers." I think it's good to have it in our page.
Jacques
Le 12/08/2016 à 16:11, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
+1, I'd simply warn again about plain email addresses (spam likes that)
Jacques
Le 09/08/2016 à 14:05, Sharan Foga a écrit :
Hi All
Just following up on this again as would like to get the Service Providers page tidied up. Looking at the links Emmanuel sent, I think that the
column with committer names needs to removed, and I would also probably remove the number contributors column too.
One thing to bear in mind is that I don't think this list changes very much, so I would try to keep the information at a level that doesn't need a
lot of maintenance.
My suggestion would be to keep it as 3 columns, name, location(s) and contact. Location can be wherever the company has a physical presence (so
includes employees located there). The contact would be a website or an email, and any other links eg social media would go.
Please let me know if this would be an acceptable solution for everyone.
Thanks
Sharan
On 2016-08-05 00:54 (+0200), Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
more than 1 contributor.
An advantage? Perhaps. Unfair? I'm not so sure about that.
Pros:
If it does convey an advantage then perhaps that might encourage companies
to contribute more which is good for the project both in terms of diversity
and contributions.
Cons:
What does it mean to be a contributor? If I create a single JIRA ticket
for some minor thing can I then be considered a contributor for the rest of
eternity? If not, then we have to define some rules and I hate the idea of
adding pointless rules. For this reason I don't like the idea of including
a count, but definitely not because of any perception of unfairness.
The same applies with to service providers with
more than one location.
This I disagree with, it is not unfair to state the locations where the
company employees work from. I think that's information that the page
users would find useful, and if it is important to them then attempting to
figure out that information by following tens or hundreds of links isn't
very useful. To claim it is an advantage is in itself an admittance that
the information would be found useful, is it not? It's very
straightforward factual information and unlike 'number of contributors' it
doesn't require any rules or definitions and isn't open to interpretation.
Regards
Scott
On 4 August 2016 at 07:52, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe the link to the site of Antweb (ofbiz.info) adds little value,
as
the list can be sorted on location.
Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
more than 1 contributor. The same applies with to service providers with
more than one location. As I mentioned earlier, let the service providers
do their marketing on their own site. Referencing blog sites, social media
accounts, email addresses, etc falls into that category.
A link to the primary website of the service provider should be enough,
resulting in following columns in the table:
- name
- Country, Province/Region/State
- website.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services
OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
Thanks for the effort Sharan!
I'd wait a bit that people have a look. I just had a glance but did not
review all yet.
for instance, I'm fine with http://www.ofbiz.info/control/providers but
I
wonder if it follows the rules because I also did not read yet
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#productsupport
Jacques
Le 03/08/2016 à 14:21, Sharan Foga a écrit :
Hi All
I have done an initial review of the service provider page and removed
any of the links that are broken, no longer working or where the webpage
has nothing to do with OFBiz. If I know that it is OFBiz related (even
though I couldnt find it on the website, I have left it in the list).
There
are a few Chinese ones that I will need some help in de-coding :-)
I think this list built up to a big size was because it was previously
open and people just came in and created an entry and link to their
website, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with OFBiz. Now with
having to be a contributor to edit the wiki, I hope this will prevent
this
type of thing happening in the future.
It is sorted alphabetically and I've removed the description column. I
will take a look at the link Emmanuel has provided. Should I continue
with
the tidy up based on what has been talked about so far or should I wait
to
see if this needs to be discussed some more?
Thanks
Sharan
On 2016-08-03 09:43 (+0200), "Sharan Foga"<sharan.f...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I will start to implement some of these changes discussed here so if
anyone else wants to join in and help, then please feel free.
Thanks
Sharan
On 2016-08-02 16:06 (+0200), Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
While we wait for the new site we could:
0) add the page discalimer as suggested; additionally, as Jacques
pointed
out, this page is open to anyone who submits an ICLA and asks to be
registered as OFBiz contributor: no one is really reviewing the data
provided... we could mention this in the header of the page
1) merge the two lists into one
2) sort in alphabetical order
3) add a column with the number of committers; one with the number of
contributors; we could add also a column with the number of employees
working on OFBiz related projects; I don't think that this data would
"unduly
advantage one commercial entity": the idea is to provide some insight
about
the teams available to work on OFBiz specific projects
4) make the above columns sortable
5) Location: simply specify the location of the company's
offices/buildings; in the description the company can specify the
countries
of operation
Jacopo
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
elecha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi !
it came to my attention that this page :
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
might not be neutral enough, as it lists companies having Ofbiz
committers before any other companies. This is a problem, accordingly
to
this :
"Apache is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which is a tax-exempt charity for
the
public
good. As such, our projects must not unduly advantage one commercial
entity
over another -- otherwise, funding our projects would be a way to
fund
a
commercial activity without being taxed."
You can also have a look at
http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence :
"
Apache projects are managed independently
Apache projects must be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure
that
they are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole. Note
that it is similarly important that the PMC clearly show this
independence within their project community. The perception of
existing
and new participants within the community that the PMC is run
independently and without favoring any specific third parties over
others is important, to allow new contributors to feel comfortable
both
joining the community and contributing their work. A community that
obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive way will often
discourage new contributors from competing vendors, which is an issue
for the long term health of the project.
"
I would suggest you rework this page to order the company using an
alphabetical order, not mentionning the fact taht some committers
belong
to those companies.
I'm not sure that grouping companies by country is the right thing to
do, as some of them might provide support in many countries. One
option
would be to add the list of countries a company provides support in
on
the same line.
A disclaimer at the top of the page may also be added, informing
users
that
neither Apache nor the project endorse any company. You can have a
look
at other project's page :
http://cxf.apache.org/commercial-cxf-offerings.html
http://directory.apache.org/commercial-support.html
Thanks !
Emmanuel Lécharny
