Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sam Ruby wrote: The ASF I wish to be a part of is one and/or create is one that tolerates differences in points of view or approach to solving problems. Amen. -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Right, well the home pages are there now. And right now they are more closely associated with Apache itself than community.apache.org would. You're bringing up a new issue as to whether they should be taken away. The matter at hand is the creation of a new alias to in a way make them more associated with individuals and Apache communities than apache.org itself. You have a corporate viewpoint of how Apache's relationship with Sun should be managed. I tend to think letting them know is fine. (Somehow any explanation of this would probably start sounding like the cluetrain manifesto...which I never read because it was too long winded, but whatever).. Let them decide based on the merits on whether they want to continue their association.. Regardless, I think this is a matter of trust and distribution of control. -Andy I'm afraid of it reflecting poorly upon the ASF. Not matter how hard you try to say that the content isn't representative of the ASF as a whole, as long as the content is hosted on our site/domain, it will be deemed as such. Imagine the day when one of our committers rants about Java on their community.apache.org/~name page and it is posted to /. and Sun gets its panties in a knot due to the bad publicity. If a member or committer does this in a non-ASF forum, fine. But, giving people a platform from which to imply association with the ASF isn't helpful to the foundation or its mission. Reacting passively to these situations isn't going to help. Once the story would be posted on /., we're all in hot water. I believe the best course of action is not to encourage this behavior. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
You have a corporate viewpoint of how Apache's relationship with Sun should be managed. I tend to think letting them know is fine. (Somehow any explanation of this would probably start sounding like the cluetrain manifesto...which I never read because it was too long winded, but whatever).. Let them decide based on the merits on whether they want to continue their association.. Not meaning to pick on you Andrew but this comment really made me feel i had to respond. Sun has a long standing relationship with the ASF, one that has taken alot of time to build, as well as contributed alot either way with regards to both code and community development. I would hate to see a situation where just one person could destroy that relationship.. and the above comment suggests that you don't really understand [the benefits of] the ASF's association with Sun. whilst i support in general a people.apache.org style structure similar to people.netscape.com and similar, just reading Jamie Zawinski's various rants about what happens when you make a comment about another company (read, partner) in your private space -- if it's possible to trace that you are an apache guy, even if it's obscure, then that is bad. This is an area where you have to be especially careful, and the first amendment argument doesn't really work here. If i were able to, i'd veto this on grounds that it'd be too difficult to maintain -- and get this -- people should be using their own web-domains and httpd/forrest/etc to get them working ! -- james
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:01 PM, Ben Hyde wrote: I've attempted to enumerate some of my concerns .. I'm done. - ben
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:01 PM, Ben Hyde wrote: I've attempted to enumerate some of my concerns .. I'm done. - ben I find myself (sadly) once again agreeing with you... david
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Sunday, December 1, 2002 8:25 PM -0500 Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Sam Ruby is the ECMA conveiner for the .NET CLI.. I propose (since its well known) that he's an apache committer and the PMC chair of Jakarta that he be told he can't do that anymore. Ugh! No, you are missing the point here. Sam can do whatever he wants to do as Sam Ruby. I'm not going to tell Sam what to do *ever*. But, I feel that if he decides to rant about ECMA or .NET or IBM or Sun or the price of pigs in Beirut, then he shouldn't do that within the forum of the ASF unless the foundation is willing to legally stand behind his views. The foundation is responsible for everything on our servers. I don't care for it to be associated with *personal* views. Go find a different soapbox to stand on top of. Your contributions to the ASF don't merit you getting a personal bully pulpit. -- justin
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: The foundation is responsible for everything on our servers. I don't care for it to be associated with *personal* views. Go find a different soapbox to stand on top of. Your contributions to the ASF don't merit you getting a personal bully pulpit. -- justin There are 450 people with commit access. Each one of them can put something in our servers that can screw the ASF, including web sites. Why is this any different? -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Sunday, December 1, 2002 7:23 PM -0800 Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are 450 people with commit access. Each one of them can put something in our servers that can screw the ASF, including web sites. Why is this any different? Because of community oversight. There are no mechanisms within the ASF that allow an individual any degree of freedom without some degree of oversight and mandated collaboration. For example, no release can be made without three committers approving it. For example, all CVS commit message end up at some mailing list where the interested participants review them. For better or worse, all of our processes are designed to limit the ability of a single person to corrupt the ASF or its projects. That's the benefit of the ASF - this isn't SourceForge where a person can do something on their own. IMHO, that is why Sam's allusion to the JSPA index left out a key point - within hours, the community had enforced oversight and removed that item from the front page (Ted moved it to the 'news' page). Furthermore, a discussion ensued in the appropriate forums as what to do next. Eventually, an 'official' position on the JSPA was reached and posted on the website. The community oversight process worked beautifully. Yet, a personal web site is just that - personal. It's purposely not part of the ASF community. There's no oversight. Therefore, I question what benefit can be gained by endorsing personal web sites hosted on the ASF infrastructure. -- justin P.S. There are about 590 people with commit right now!
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sam Ruby wrote: The ASF has supportted .forward files for e-mail for quite some time. Would the mere act of putting a one line .forward file into your ~/public_html directory with your favorite URL be OK? A bit more work for httpd than your ~name/public_html/community or some such proposal, but combined with your suggested merger of http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html and ~coar/people.html, it would appear to address most objections I noted on the thread. One that it doesn't address is Ben Hyde's view that that the chaotic mess, where there are committers who don't even know that they can create a public_html, much less feel encouraged to do so, is different from a seeming endorsement of community pages. Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: My personal experience shows that promoting personal context helps creating more friendly communities. Do you believe that someone's first thought would be to look at some centralized index, or at the project's home page? What if the contributors list on each project were similarly (and optionally) instrumented as proposed by Sam Ruby's suggestion (above)? Or is that an infrastructure question, along with IM and Wiki topics? --- Noel
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 01:28 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de facto representation of the face of the Apache community. FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this. Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna. People think I'm the one who is too negative! I work on Apache stuff in part because I like having my mind opened by really smart developers who oddly enough self select. I can code anywhere. If you'll look the home pages haven't become that at all. They're all short little bios or here is where you can find my homepage type stuff. Some are here's things I'm working on and here's my proposed solution to this and that.. I'm interested in having a place where I can quickly look up the basics of the guy who walks up to me at an ApacheCon or JUG meeting or something and says I'm so and so .. . I sneak off and say oh yeah that guy... I'm interested in knowing more about the men (and women, but lets face it there just ain' that many) behind the email addresses, bringing that personal touch to the community. For me that personal touch errodes the antipathy that seems to be coming from the other side of the isle.. That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. I'm interested in bringing others closer to the community whom currently do regard it as some kind of star chamber. .(I'd say thats the prevalent view) I notice a lot of folks share these views, but I can tell there is a whole other side whom hold the exact opposite opinion. If having a homepage on apache.org becomes one of the valued privileges one gets after being accepted into the ASF, then we will only be replacing the star chamber with an ivory tower (with a megaphone). As others have said earlier in this discussion, this does not further the goals of the ASF. It keeps coming back down to this: open (we sit on the left) closed (you sit on the right) Woah there! The word open is an extremely loaded word in real-life to begin with. You can't possibly address a group of people who write open source software and divide this discussion on these lines. By the mere fact that anyone who is interested in software development within the ASF may join this mailing list and /openly/ discuss this and other topics means that we are all part of an open forum. I do not think it is fair to shun everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on the creation of a community.apache.org website as closed. and it really keeps being that simple. I hear from the other side lets make sure we silence these voices before they get too loud and I guess I tend to think if they get too loud I'll ignore them.. In fact the web pages are awesome for this because I don't even have to filter...Just don't go to them if they offend your sensibilities. But I keep hearing we don't want to talk, but you shut up too and that is justdepressing. Nobody here is saying that people can't have their homepages or blogs, they're just saying not to do it on an apache.org website. -aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 01:39 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Our mission. Creating great software. Puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams. Releasing that widely under a license that is both open. Crafting an effective open license. One that doesn't entrap folks. This proposal is exactly about 'puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams'. That's what mailing lists are for. :) The ASF is currently fragmented. Allow me to say balkanized. I see this as a problem. I want to 'puzzle out' how to solve this problem and I think that giving more personal context will help out. This is my personal experience. You might disagree. But try to remember if knowing apache group members in person helped the creation of the httpd community. As I recall, the Apache Group didn't all meet until shortly before the ASF (the corporation) was formed. The group had already been functioning very well for quite some time before the corporation was formed. Sure I'd love to organize gettogethers every week, but we don't have the resources for that. I believe the success of open source software depends heavily upon the fact that the internet provides a medium of communication that does _not_ require face-to-face meetings. -aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
It has been implied by those who contribute massive amounts of their time to maintain our systems, that as soon as a secure and manageable system for revision control comes along that does not require local accounts (like subversion), then they will stop creating login accounts and might possibly start removing login accounts. This of course doesn't mean that ~userdir has to go away, just that it may not be supported by a login account. -aaron On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 11:47 PM, Steven Noels wrote: Aaron Bannert wrote: In the future not everyone will have an account on cvs.apache.org either. Could you elaborate on this?
ASF Member/Committer AUP
I have been following the discussion about publicizing ASF Member/Committer home pages. The contentious issue seems to be what is appropriate use of a home page hosted on apache, or even if there should be home pages at all. A major concern of those against the proposal is that pages hosted at apache.org will be seen as represensting the ASF. They are concerned about protecting the Apache brand. Throughout the discussion no one pointed to any ASF documentation on what acceptable use is. With the ASF developer community growing to over 500 committers perhaps what is needed is an AUP which addresses appropriate use of their email account, home page, and commit privs. Nothing draconian, but something that can set expectations of what is acceptable use and give the ASF Board/PMC a foundation for making decisions when someone crosses the line. Regards, Glenn
Re: ASF Member/Committer AUP
Personally I prefer late-refactoring. Has it been a problem yet? Glenn Nielsen wrote: I have been following the discussion about publicizing ASF Member/Committer home pages. The contentious issue seems to be what is appropriate use of a home page hosted on apache, or even if there should be home pages at all. A major concern of those against the proposal is that pages hosted at apache.org will be seen as represensting the ASF. They are concerned about protecting the Apache brand. Throughout the discussion no one pointed to any ASF documentation on what acceptable use is. With the ASF developer community growing to over 500 committers perhaps what is needed is an AUP which addresses appropriate use of their email account, home page, and commit privs. Nothing draconian, but something that can set expectations of what is acceptable use and give the ASF Board/PMC a foundation for making decisions when someone crosses the line. Regards, Glenn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Aaron Bannert wrote: That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox. Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you think should be on and off limits? Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which, to be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly could be categorized as http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ). What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus. For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . Now let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each committer to specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single hypertext link to the page of their choice. As has been pointed out, this is not materially different that what has been in place on http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time. If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be enforced. Should the guidelines be different for on-site and off-site content? I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but would be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus. Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals along these lines? - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On Monday, December 2, 2002 8:39 AM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much more. Of course we are. We're saying that anyone can post whatever they want on their apache.org site. That's what I'm against. I don't want people posting their honeymoon pictures or their Beanie Babies collection. But, as soon as we say, 'you can post whatever you want,' that's what is going to happen. Saying otherwise is foolish. Color me foolish then. I just can't wait to have my very own dot on Stephano's cool SVG image. Unfortunately, Roy's site is sort of an example of what I don't want to see. However, what I believe Sam hasn't realized is that Roy *just* moved his site there from the UCI servers while he looks for a new home for his web site. (Roy will correct me if I'm wrong.) I trust Roy not to post anything inappropriate, so I'm not going to complain because I believe it's temporary. Yet, not every committer has earned my trust in the way Roy has. If your description is accurate, I see Roy's behavior here as completely consistent with Jon's placement of an idiot.html url within the Jakarta community documents. Is this the Apache Way? -- Joe Schaefer
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Monday, December 2, 2002 10:56 AM -0500 Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin, if you would like to put forward a set of rules, guidelines, and suggest an enforcement mechanism, I would be inclined to endorse it if it would further consensus. As I have said before, what I would prefer is more projects using the 'contributors' page that lists all contributors with a short blurb about them - much along the lines of what Stefano originally suggested. It'd be on the project pages, not on individual person's pages (that ensures oversight). Their entry can then link to the non-ASF site of their choice. My canonical example is: http://httpd.apache.org/contributors/ Although Jakarta has one of their own: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html My issue with the Jakarta page is that it doesn't have a picture (rather, room for a picture) and not everyone has their favorite link associated with it. For a page so large, the index at the top with everyone's name on it would be goodness, I think. I also have a hunch that each Jakarta sub-project should have a contributors page rather than a maintaining a global Jakarta one. That page is just too big. What I would think would also be agreeable is that we have a foundation-wide page that links to each project's contributors page. I'd be loathe to see duplication though. Hence, just link to each project's page. However, I could see a case where someone on community@ doesn't know what projects I'm on and hence doesn't know where to look for my info. That may make the case for polishing up Jim's page that lists all committers and their projects and putting it somewhere more 'official.' Perhaps, we could also follow a similar pattern as we do for members with committers. Jim's page could be tweaked to have a simple 'name, organization' with preferred links for both. That'd be it. Nothing more (every committer would be arranged alphabetically with no mention of what PMCs, ASF membership, etc, etc.). Yet, your 'name' link should do a job of describing who you are. If your preferred website doesn't describe you, then I wouldn't complain that no one knows who you are. =) There is such a directory for members. And I'm pleased to report that I have yet to come across a Beanie Baby in any of the links I have visited. The members directory just has their name and organization (perhaps URLs for both). But, all those links are external. =) I don't care if you sell Beanie Babies or have pictures of your kids on your site. -- justin
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 December 2002 22:23 Sander Striker wrote: Which is simply not the case if not all committers and members are represented on there. Here is an effort that I made last year http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/ Here is much move visually appealing and more maintained version: http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html Would starting with Jim's effort address your objections? Suppose I took the initiative to merge Jim and Ken's work, and come up with a page that looks exactly like Jim's but converted their CVS id into a hypertext link for individuals that chose to opt-in? That would be fair, yes. The ASF has supportted .forward files for e-mail for quite some time. And I'm glad for it. The amount of spam and unsubscription requests received after posting to the announce@ list just isn't funny... This at least allows me to filter on address ;). Would the mere act of putting a one line .forward file into your ~/public_html directory with your favorite URL be OK? I don't see why not. You do imply picking up this .forward file (or .fav_url or whatever) and putting that on a merged jim/coar page right? Sander
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 December 2002 22:49 Sander Striker wrote: Right now the homepages aren't linked to from anywhere and certainly not promoted. Creating the dns entry will seem like promoting the use of the homepages. Yes, that's exactly the intention. people.apache.org or community.apache.org will imply that such a domain entails all the people of the ASF or the entire community of the ASF. It's damn easy to create a list of all committers and provide links only for those who happen to have their ASF homepage available. That solves 'in/out' problems. This simply can never be true since not everyone has time to create and maintain a 'community' area in his homepage area. It's up to you to partecipate in this, but I don't see why the fact that you don't have time should limit others in their ability to be more community friendly. I'm not saying that. Some of us barely have spare time and are likely to contribute to their projects rather than maintain their 'community' area. Fair, then don't do so. My point is that quite a number of people won't have the time (or inclination) to do so. And because they don't, they aren't listed*. So, in the end, only the people with lots of time on their hands, or simply the most vocal ones, will (likely) be perceived (by visitors of community.apache.org) to _be_ the ASF, instead of a few faces within the ASF. pfff, if I lack the time to partecipate in a mail list discussion should I propose to shut the mail list off until I have enough time? Bah, I'm quite sure you got my point. Currently the list (auto created) on Kens page holds about 40 committers. How many committers do we have in total? Somewhere between 550 and 600. 40 isn't exactly an accurate representation of our community, is it? I'm moving my -0 to a -1 on this basis. It would be something else if community.apache.org were only accessible by committers... Sander: since the ASF was created, this page http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html contains the list of all members and not all of them have the time/will/energy/whatever to maintain an ASF-related homepage (I'm one of them, BTW). Nobody ever said that those linked ones receive more attention than the others. I hope you are not implying this. I'm not. I'm just saying that on the members page _all_ members are listed. I agree with you that ASF 'visibility' should not be a function of whether or not you have a homepage setup. Exactly. So, just like you don't stop discussions if you don't have time, but you still receive messages, I would suggest that we list *all* committers, but then we link only those who do have an ASF-related homepage setup. Does that remove your fears? Some of them. I feel others have voiced things in line with my views so I'm not going to duplicate that. Sander *) This is addressed in the last paragraph of this mail and in my reply to Sam.
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 December 2002 16:56 Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Monday, December 2, 2002 8:39 AM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much more. Of course we are. We're saying that anyone can post whatever they want on their apache.org site. That's what I'm against. I don't want people posting their honeymoon pictures or their Beanie Babies collection. But, as soon as we say, 'you can post whatever you want,' that's what is going to happen. Saying otherwise is foolish. I agree with Nicola Ken. We *are* talking about different things. Stefano proposed a short bio, picture, etc. (Although, to date I have not had a significant problem with people mispronouncing my name). You are objecting to Beanie Babies. If it will help further consensus, I will object to Beanie Babies too. Some people don't want these rules imposed. Ken for one didn't want this (correct me if I'm wrong Ken). Sander
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sander Striker wrote: My point is that quite a number of people won't have the time (or inclination) to do so. And because they don't, they aren't listed*. : Currently the list (auto created) on Kens page holds about 40 committers. How many committers do we have in total? Somewhere between 550 and 600. 40 isn't exactly an accurate representation of our community, is it? so the issue is painting the list as being representative, then? fine; we just mark it as 'asf people who have bothered to list pages here.' I'm not. I'm just saying that on the members page _all_ members are listed. what's the relevance? the members page says 'these are the members'. i don't recall seeing anyone say the list of ~name pages was to be labeled 'these are the asf committers'. quite otherwise, in fact; i've seen suggestions that it be clearly marked as incomplete and opt-in.
Re: ASF Member/Committer AUP
communities can only grow so fast and so large by using osmosis to transfer ideas. the incubator will need to be able to tell incubatees the apache resources at their disposal and the limits beyond which use of these resources becomes abuse. i'd like to this kind of information provided to all new committers and also be made available for existing committers. for example, given the recent community anti-Beanie Babies hatefest, then the incubatees need to be told that under no circumstances should they post up web pages detailing their oh-so-interesting collections in their apache home directories ;) - robert On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 02:30 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Personally I prefer late-refactoring. Has it been a problem yet? Glenn Nielsen wrote: I have been following the discussion about publicizing ASF Member/Committer home pages. The contentious issue seems to be what is appropriate use of a home page hosted on apache, or even if there should be home pages at all. A major concern of those against the proposal is that pages hosted at apache.org will be seen as represensting the ASF. They are concerned about protecting the Apache brand. Throughout the discussion no one pointed to any ASF documentation on what acceptable use is. With the ASF developer community growing to over 500 committers perhaps what is needed is an AUP which addresses appropriate use of their email account, home page, and commit privs. Nothing draconian, but something that can set expectations of what is acceptable use and give the ASF Board/PMC a foundation for making decisions when someone crosses the line. Regards, Glenn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin, if you would like to put forward a set of rules, guidelines, and suggest an enforcement mechanism, I would be inclined to endorse it if it would further consensus. It occurs to me that if people want to guide the content of the ASF hosted personal page, there could be a DTD, and the pages could be generated from an XML file using a consistent look as is done for projects. The DTD could define an optional reference to an off-site page for individual expression (personal pages, blogs, wikis, whatever). You'd opt-in by creating the XML, have guidance as to the normal content, have a standard way to refer to more personal data as desired, and it would be clear that such other data was not part of the standard ASF material. That provides a standard opt-in mechanism, guidance on content, ought to encourage the kind of information Stefano has in mind, and provides for freedom of expression on an indirect page. Does that satisfy anyone? --- Noel
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
ROUS wrote: uniform education of (new) committers is one of the purposes of the incubator project. documenting these things for all, including existing committers, is as well. As a new committer, I not only appreciate that view, I want to know where to find the info! :-) --- Noel
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Noel J. Bergman wrote: As a new committer, I not only appreciate that view, I want to know where to find the info! :-) keep an eye on incubator.apache.org
Re: [RFC] prototype committers list with links
Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Web page can be found at: http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/committers.html Source to the script can be found at: http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/committers.pl Fire away with comments, criticisms, suggestions, and most importantly, patches. I believe that this addresses most, if not all, of the concerns identified to date. If not, let me know. Notes: 1) The links were lovingly screen scraped from the httpd, jakarta, and members pages. In the case where a multiple links are associated with an id, one is chosen essentially randomly (hint: community pages which provide actual apache user ids are taken as more authoritative as ones that merely provide names). OK. 2) The list is all inclusive for committers, but in order to get a link to appear on this page you must have an entry on a community page and furthermore provide a link (i.e., presence of links are both community monitored/enforced and totally opt-in). Hmmm... Dunno about this one. If you could come up with a better way to get the links for userids (maybe a txt file in the committers cvs repos that maps userid - urls?), I'd be happy with that. 3) No validation of any kind of the content of the website referenced by the URL is enforced. Cool. 4) People are free to deep link to this page in its current location, but the ultimate goal is for this content to migrate to a more prominent and stable location. Sounds good to me--kind of a committers page like the members page, eh? -Fitz
Re: [RFC] prototype committers list with links
Sam Ruby wrote: Fire away with comments, criticisms, suggestions, and most importantly, patches. I believe that this addresses most, if not all, of the concerns identified to date. If not, let me know. i would prefer to have my name link to my cvs.apache.org/~coar/ page. 1) The links were lovingly screen scraped so this isn't data-driven? feh. should be. future rev.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Aaron Bannert wrote: To me it seems we are trying to solve two problems here: 1) A place to put homepages and personal content, including (but not limited to) ASF-related activities and project proposals, as well as individual interests. 2) A catalog of the people representing the ASF community. IMO the only time #1 should be hosted on an apache.org site is if for some reason the person can not find other space to host the content. I am perfectly fine with #2, as we have already been doing so with contributor pages for the various projects (I happen to think this is more effective than a simple list of all 600 or so committers.) #1 is already there. [more comments below] On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 06:47 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: Aaron Bannert wrote: That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox. Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you think should be on and off limits? This is an excellent example of what can go right if we host people's personal homepages on apache.org. Do you believe that every other page we host will turn out the same way? Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which, to be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly could be categorized as http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ). What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus. For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . Now let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each committer to specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single hypertext link to the page of their choice. As has been pointed out, this is not materially different that what has been in place on http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time. I have no problem with this, as long as the individual pages are hosted elsewhere than the apache.org namespace. Note that I didn't say hosted elsewhere than on the ASF infrastructure. As long as the people who own the hardware and pay the bandwidth bills don't mind*, I would have no problem with a vhost entry for, say www.friendsofapache.com or www.peopleofapache.com or even www.amiapacheornot.com (tongue-in-cheek :), as long as it doesn't imply that it is officially ASF. *I considered offering hosting space for ASF people who have no other place to put their stuff, but I don't think I have sufficient bandwidth or reliable-enough hardware... Although, I believe per-project listings of contributors with offsite links is more effective, I won't move to block a flat list of every ASF-community member. If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be enforced. Should the guidelines be different for on-site and off-site content? As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings. This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with should probably have the same level of oversight. I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but would be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus. Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals along these lines? -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF Member/Committer AUP
I took a guess regarding .forward and public_html (but I wonder if Windows users would know about them), and played with CVS and ssh to get it all working with public keys. Sent e-mail to Brian detailing my experience, which appears to have been incorporated into the Committers FAQ by someone with a more clever hand at perl than I. Alternatively I've been working on this for those windows users: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/idedevelopers.html Its java specific at the moment, but it doesn't *have* to be. The goal is to educate the new breed whom were weened on Windows Explorer, how to get things done.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 12:55 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: [long quote omitted] Please refrain from copying every line of a post in your reply. It is best to only quote what you are replying to. -aaron
Re: [RFC] prototype committers list with links
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: 'nother thought. do we want to include in the karma column modules which aren't available through anoncvs/viewcvs? Yeah, I was thinking the same thing - we shouldn't include ones that aren't publically available. Perhaps we should have a list of 'dead' CVS repositories to exclude - for example, apache-1.2 isn't active any more... So, why not either (1) remove the anoncvs symbolic link, or (2) remove the name from the avail file. Either action will cause these entries to disappear from this generated page. Clearly, side files can be created to address this, but I find processes such as these provide insightful perspectives into the way things are set up that may motivate people to DoTheRightThing(TM). My only other comment would be not to bold ASF members. There's no good reason (IMHO) to distinguish them here. I won't take credit for this, but I must admit that I kinda like it. The visual clues are not overwhelming, and at the Town Hall we heard some say that they were not aware that there was such a thing as ASF membership. As I understand it from discussions with a number of people at ApacheCon, the overall goal is to get everyone who both gets it and appears likely to be sticking around for a while to become a member. Perhaps, this will provide a subtle push. Meanwhile, there undoubtably are cases where someone like Jim is looking up an id and would find it useful to know if the person is a member. This provides a such information all in one place. If I get time, I might take a pass at Sam's perl script and tweaking it accordingly. If someone beats me, great. =) Other than that, it's a great step in the right direction! Go Sam! =) Thanks! - Sam Ruby P.S. I posted some meta commentary on this discussion on the web. It shouldn't be very hard to find. ;-)
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Aaron Bannert wrote: As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings. This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with should probably have the same level of oversight. Justin has a very valid point: without proper oversight people might abuse their pages without even knowing they are doing it. Unfortunately, you fail to see that some of us work on so many different projects that it will be a major PITA to scatter our bio information all over the place. It would be *much* easier to link directly to our asf-related personal page. [yeah, let's call it 'ASF personal page' rather than home page so that nobody freaks out] Now, I wonder: why don't we use the 'community' CVS repository for personal pages? (or create another community-pages repository) By doing so we could: 1) have proper oversight because all diffs are sent on a cvs-related mail list like all the other CVS repositories (we could send those diffs here) 2) we are future-compatible in case the apache infrastructure is able to remove the need for account on cvs.apache.org 3) it is easier for non-unix committers to setup their pages since they already have to know how to use CVS. 4) all personal information about everybody is kept in one place, so it's easy for infrastructure people to keep an eye on disk usage for those personally-related information 5) community personal pages don't conflict with existing users pages Possible objections: a) that community cvs module might become huge and I don't want to checkout the whole thing. answer: cvs checkout community/pages/$user/ will download only your stuff. what do you think? -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
