I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
/Janne On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <[email protected]> wrote: > "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured, there is > no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid of yesterday's > lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look at/discuss/ooh and aah it and > can more clearly grasp what we need to move over. Especially since you are > most knowledgable about what is no longer important. The first action on > "How do we move 500K of text over?" is "How do we make it 200K of text?" > It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues that matter if they must always be > interspersed with 15 items nobody cares about. > > I think there are two more changes needed for that site: > > 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now moved > to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions of > JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information becomes > obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop acting > like it's the main website for JSPWiki. > > 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu items (and > their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly give the > appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter category > have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site: News, Recent > Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List, Weblog, Getting > Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New Ideas?, What's > up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information on those pages > that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site (I don't see any > myself), we can keep those particular links until we move the data over. But > for links for which you're in agreement with me are obsolete, it would be > great to delete them now so they don't continue to serve as distractions. > > Regards, > Glen > > > On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote: >> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to contribute >> to JSPWiki ;-) >> >> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved. >> >> /Janne >> >> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the >>> 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and >>> see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you >>> describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we >>> should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything >>> henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will >>> probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the old site >>> anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be >>> transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable. >>> >>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache >>> or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It >>> would be nice if we could movehttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache >>> site. >>> >>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would >>> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not >>> necessarily, Apache doesn't >>> ownwww.chemistry.com,www.tomcat.com,www.pig.com,www.chemistry.org,www.camel.com, >>> and probably many others. I think the main thing though is that the site >>> can't act like it's the Apache product. With the two sites above shut down >>> or moved to Apache, you might just be able to release the domain instead of >>> giving it to Apache. >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote: >>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use >>>> the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall >>>> whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it >>>> was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's >>>> better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a >>>> redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or >>>> something. >>>> >>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed >>>> copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their >>>> server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of >>>> old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons. >>>> >>>> /Janne >>>> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out >>>>> of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache >>>>> site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to >>>>> Finnish legal reasons. >>>>> >>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party >>>>> site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki >>>>> committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache >>>>> JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have >>>>> our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, >>>>> even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would >>>>> like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much >>>>> faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache >>>>> projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are >>>>> (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our >>>>> documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however >>>>> unpleasant, should be evaluated. >>>>> >>>>> Glen >>>>> >>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of >>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is >>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so >>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of >>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the >>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO. >>>>>> >>>>>> @mentors, WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> br, >>>>>> juan pablo >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry >>>>>> Metske<[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't >>>>>>> stay in >>>>>>> the incubator forever... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> kind regards, >>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could >>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 >>>>>>>> fixed >>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also: >>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being >>>>>>>> outdated >>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer) >>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site >>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651) >>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been >>>>>>> ages >>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it >>>>>>> safe >>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> br, >>>>>>>> juan pablo >>>>>>>>
