James Carlson wrote: > Jim Grisanzio writes: > >> We'll not lose any critical history and here's why: active groups >> maintain their content and infrastructure very well, and their stuff >> will be moved over to the new site. Once there, XWiki will provide a >> convenient content management system for page histories, etc. However, >> there is no need to move over empty groups or piles of abandoned >> content. If we can delete that stuff, that would be helpful. >> > > I would recommend checking out the dicussion that occurred over in > networking-discuss. There's a substantial part of the engineering > community that disagrees vehemently with that assertion: > > http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=103471&tstart=0 > > ... and is in fact quite surprised and dismayed that removing old > projects is even under discussion. > > (Personally, I *do* agree, and I think that old projects ought to be > flushed, and that the real problem here is a lack of a good design > documentation repository and a lack of process related to integrating > that sort of crucial information. I'm pretty much alone in that, > though.) >
Hi ... thanks for starting that thread. :) It`s good to raise awareness of the issue and the site migration. I mean that sincerely. I am only suggesting that people use the opportunity to clean house a bit. If content is valuable, even if it`s old, than of course it should be kept and no one would suggest otherwise. People can disagree with /how/ it should be kept and /what/ to keep, but it`s just good project management to poke around from time to time and clean things up and organize things better. Those decisions really remain with the project leaders in the vast majority of cases (who am I to decide, right?). Even if a project is finished and no longer active, it would be great to mark it "archive" or something and have it sit there for history and reference sake (though I`d like the lists made inactive if they are not being used so they don`t attract spam). All of that is fine. And as I said, I think the majority of active groups maintain their spaces quite well and will be moved over just fine. However, in obvious cases where a group space (project, community, user group) is abandoned or empty or not well maintained then I think the sponsoring CG and/or the OGB has every right to suggest that that space be cleaned up and owned or deleted. I just think that`s reasonable. Heck, two OGBs ago we were talking about various community reorgs and addressing some of this issue of unused infrastructure. In Advocacy, for example, I have some content that I wrote that at this point applies to nothing. So, I will delete that stuff. For other stuff, I will start conversations on list or contact people privately (which I have already done) to determine the value of some things I think may be questionable (such as abandoned projects, lists, and user groups). Those will all be local decisions for the most part. No central authority is going to go from project to project to police this among all the hundreds of groups we have (except for the few extreme cases). It`s just a suggestion for people take stock of their own stuff before we make a big content migration. So, that`s how I am addressing John`s question (which was a reasonable one). We don`t lose any history when xyz community opened in 2005 and remains empty today with spam living on its lists and all the project leads sitting on the beach. It`s those extreme cases like that I`d like to clean up. Thanks ... Jim -- opensolaris.org transition: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/web/
