On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 18 July 2013 20:12, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote: >> >> > On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki. When >> >>>> looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two >> >>>> entirely different approaches to organizing the information: >> >>>> >> >>>> 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level >> >>>> there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc. >> >>>> >> >>>> 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific >> >>>> release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and >> >>>> plans for functional groups. >> >>>> >> >>>> These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not >> >>>> consistently. >> >>>> >> >>>> I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something >> >> like: >> >>>> >> >>>> 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking >> >>>> release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages, >> >>>> lists of volunteers, "how to" information. The stuff that does not >> >>>> change from release to release. It is information about the team and >> >>>> what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release. >> >>>> >> >>>> 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans >> >>>> and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge >> >> with >> >>> mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of >> wiki, >> >>> and it do cost maintenance. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki. Migration would be more >> >> effort, but we could restructure while migrating. But a non-trivial >> >> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving >> >> images, etc. >> >> Exactly. >> >> >> >> > >> > So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different >> > products....We should have been a goverment agency. >> >> Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki >> on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many >> months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the >> migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you >> want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred. >> > > I know when AOO got CWIKI and also part of the remaining story. I have also > seen quite a lot of Terry E work (He has done quite a lot and I am sorry it > did not work out between him and infra). > > on #asfinfra (where I am online) root@ already told me some time ago about > the initial setup and terry E. These difficulties was more "setup" type > problems and not really conversion problems (acc. infra) > > As a maintainer of several servers, I think its normal to think how can we > do better....I cannot see why I should not raise concerns, when I have > them, to me an argument about a thing being complicated is not an argument > for not doing the right thing. Admitted I did not need to write the agency > part, but I really feel stuck in the discussion. >
No one ever said you shouldn't raise concerns. To me it looked like you self-censored yourself when you said you "wont press further ". But you do overstate things when you express them in absolute terms, e.g., saying this is about "doing the right thing". Remember, there are many "right things" any of us could be doing in the project (or elsewhere), but there are only 24 hours in the day. This necessarily leads to prioritization. Migrating existing, perfectly good content from one technical infrastructure to another is not high on my personal list of priorities. This, however, should not inhibit you are anyone else interested from exploring this further. The direction is set by those who think something is important, not by those, like myself, who are indifferent. Regards, -Rob > > > The CWiki serves its purpose very well. >> > > I am sure it does, and did not dispute that....I am solely thinking of our > stretched maintenance resources (including infra), at some point we do need > to consolidate our information stores. > > We have our different www's, different wikis and a blog all containing bits > and pieces of information, some of it redundant (and often not maintained > in some of the flavours), on top of that we have the forums. > > My point is, independent how difficult it is, we should target a > consolidated set of information, with a clear signal, where which info is > kept. > > > >> > But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance. >> >> If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help >> however I can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to >> Admin it which quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much >> effort has it taken to manage MWiki? >> > > You already help a lot, thanks for that, and you are right it will be a > hard job to get it done after a community decision. > >> >> The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must >> manage our own MediaWiki. >> > > I have no opinion on which systems shall survive, if we think CWIKI is the > better choice then so be it. But please dont forget ASF is you, me and many > others. What I mean is, when I maintain the servers, its hard to see if I > wear my AOO cap or my ASF/INFRA cap. > >> >> Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller. Maybe >> some of the CWiki content belongs there? >> > > It is at the moment only a infra consideration and test. I have not dared > suggest it, but WP would be able to handle blog, cwiki, mediawiki and large > parts of www. > >> >> Anyone object to the deletion of the unused OOODEV cwiki? >> > > +1 > > rgds > jan I > >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> > >> > rgds >> > jan I. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -Rob >> >> >> >>> rgds >> >>> jan I. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -Rob >> >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
