Re: [CentOS-docs] request to have edit access to wiki

[Karsten Wade]

On 3/5/19 1:13 PM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
> Please refresh my memory by specifying "that page" of which you mention, 
> above.

Sorry, didn't notice that omission.  This page:

https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo

Best,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] request to have edit access to wiki

[Karsten Wade]

Hi all,

I did try to do this myself as I thought Tuomas had introduced himself
and gotten wiki access for other pages ... but my skills with the #acl
markup have atrophied and I couldn't make it work. :)

I'd like Tuomas to have access so there is a clear commit record of him
having down the work, and in the future to collaborate on any
adjustments to that page.

best regards,

- Karsten

On 3/4/19 11:09 PM, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> As by Karsten's request, I wish to update the logo page with a non-wordmark
> version of the CentOS logo symbol (useful for virtual machine image
> catalogs etc)
> 
> To do this, I need permissions to edit the wiki.
> 
> My account is https://wiki.centos.org/TuomasKuosmanen
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Tuomas
> 

-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes

[Karsten Wade]

On 10/31/2018 02:53 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> What does it mean, exactly?
>
> Does it mean that a logo, as the one done for docker, will be prepared
> for Boxes usage meanwhile or that we'll have to solve the guidelines
> issues as the first thing?

It means two things:

1.  I want to make sure that GNOME has clear permission to use the
graphic logo without the wordmark.

Who will prepare the logo?  I do not know, we could use a volunteer.

When are you OK to use it?  As soon as the Board finishes and issues a
letter, which is now in the draft stage.

2.  I want to clarify any ambiguity/confusion with the trademark
guidelines and the artwork/logo guidelines.

If there is anything needing changes, hopefully that will make it so
that no further special permission is needed for similar uses.

While I do think the permission is already granted by the trademark
guidelines, there may be some ambiguity because there is no
corresponding logo without the wordmark and usage guidelines on the wiki
ArtWork page.

Best regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes

[Karsten Wade]

Hi all,

There is now a draft permission letter working it's way through the
CentOS Board.  It is intended to cover permission for just the GNOME
Project's use with GNOME Boxes.

I am still pursuing resolving this within the guidelines, that will take
more time.

Best regards,

- Karsten

On 10/16/2018 07:10 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> People,
> 
> On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 09:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>> On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
>>> From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is
>>> the
>>> difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of
>>> the
>>> link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?
>>
>> Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a
>> specific logo was prepared.  In this case, the permission has been
>> requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the
>> ArtWork
>> page.
>>
>>> BTW, that is the logo only;
>>
>> There are two aspects here:
>>
>> 1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without
>> the wordmark?
>>
>> 2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to
>> make
>> it explicit what can and cannot be done.
>>
>> For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there
>> may
>> be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand-
>> alone
>> in various situations.  For this I am seeking expert advice.
>>
>> As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of
>> just
>> the logo, point 5 here:
>>
>> https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses
>>
>> But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork
>> page.
>>
>> What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of
>> permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and
>> ii)
>> fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark
>> guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.
> 
> Any news here?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 

-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes

[Karsten Wade]

On 09/19/2018 03:35 AM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
> From someone who doesn't know anything about design/legal, what is the
> difference between this instance and what was done in point 7.3 of the
> link (7.3. For special sub-projects)?

Essentially similar, in that specific permission was granted and a
specific logo was prepared.  In this case, the permission has been
requested and there is not a corresponding logo prepared on the ArtWork
page.

> BTW, that is the logo only;

There are two aspects here:

1. Should the project allow for the graphical logo to be used without
the wordmark?

2. If yes to 1, the project should adjust one or both guidelines to make
it explicit what can and cannot be done.

For #1 it may be that we want to do so for various cases, but there may
be reasons and risks we are not aware of in using the logo stand-alone
in various situations.  For this I am seeking expert advice.

As it happens, the trademark guidelines do allow for some uses of just
the logo, point 5 here:

https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/#acceptable-uses

But there is not a corresponding graphic and how-to on the ArtWork page.

What I want to do is i) as quickly as we can resolve the question of
permission for GNOME so they can move on with their development, and ii)
fix any actual or perceived inconsistencies between the trademark
guidelines and the logo usage guidelines.

Best regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes

[Karsten Wade]

On 09/18/2018 11:03 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> My understanding is that we can use all the CentOS marks provided here[0].
> However, those unfortunately are not looking good enough on Boxes and
> we'd like to use, if possible, just the logo as in here[1]
> 
> Would that be possible? As far as I could understand that would be a
> violation of the trademark.
> 
> [0]: 
> https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo#head-bf605cecf99c819d5a39e726ffb928999e1a13e6
> [1]: 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CentOS#/media/File:CentOS_color_logo.svg

Hi Fabiano,

Thanks for clarifying and that connects with what Rich said about how
we've used just the graphic logo mark in practice but do not have a
guideline that allows that on the ArtWork wiki.

This item is actually on my short list of things to clarify for the
trademark guidelines and updates on the ArtWork page.

For the moment, we can pursue a specific permission for GNOME Boxes.
Can you provide a mock-up of how it would appear on the page?

I'm looking at https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Boxes but am not sure how it
would appear.  Am I correct that the logo would appear when running the
GNOME Boxes application inside of a GNOME session?  If yes, is there
also a corresponding use on the website?  A mock-up from there would be
useful as well.

Knowing that this has been missed for a few months, I'll work through
the discussions on our side to expedite a decision for you.

Regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] [CentOS-devel] Authorization to use CentOS logo in GNOME Boxes

[Karsten Wade]

Thanks Rich for drawing this forward, I had missed it.  (I generally
handle all the trademark usage queries.)

The key reference is this one, the trademark guidelines:

https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/

That document should give the GNOME project all of the authorization and
guidelines on how to use and not use the CentOS marks.

Fabiano -- if you have any further questions, you may also direct them
to centos...@centos.org .

Rich -- it looks as if we need to update or clarify on the wiki around
the appearance of the (R) in the marks.  There is a link in a section
there called "Usage Restrictions"[1] but it isn't terribly visible.  I
just added a new short paragraph at the top of the page referring to the
guidelines.

Best regards,

- Karsten

[1]
https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo#head-f379d7da0b5da9a7161148c5c9a093a00085975b




On 09/18/2018 07:23 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Bumping this thread in the hopes that we can get an official opinion
> from someone on the board.
> 
> In particular, the guidelines at
> https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo seem to indicate that we're
> not supposed to use the logo without the wordmark, but we do that all
> the time, even on official swag. What's the official ruling, and who can
> we go to for further clarification?
> 
> --Rich
> 
> On 6/19/18 7:29 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>> People,
>>
>> Firstly, sorry for the cross-list post (centos-devel and centos-docs).
>>
>> I'd like to reach you in order to ask for a formal authorization to
>> use CentOS logo on GNOME Boxes[0]. GNOME Boxes already shows a few
>> other distro's logos as you can check here[1].
>>
>> Would be possible to get the explicit confirmation that we could use
>> CentOS logo as well?
>>
>> [0]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Boxes
>> [1]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-boxes/raw/master/README.logos
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
> 

-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] reference page for Apache test page & the project

[Karsten Wade]

Some or all of you may be aware that people often contact the CentOS
Project because they come across the default Apache server test page on
a non-centos.org domain.

In trying to contact the domain owner, they mistakenly contact us.  This
is despite the language at the bottom of the page telling them what they
are seeing and not to contact us about it.

This has come up for me in responding to GDPR requests; many incoming
emails are of this variety.

I went looking for a reference page to point people at about this
situation, and not finding one I create this one:

https://wiki.centos.org/ApacheTestPage/OnUnaffiliatedDomains

Figuring that the problem is that people are not reading the whole page
before or otherwise are stuck and contact us anyway ...

* What can be done to improve the page I wrote?
* How can it be more clear?
* Is there a better page I can point at?

Thanks for your input,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Logo colors added to wiki

[Karsten Wade]

Hi all:

Since our designer friend Tuomas Kuosmanen (tigert) already did the hard
work of specifying the CentOS logo colors in HEX, Pantone, and CMYK ...
I did the small step of adding them to the wiki.

This might be useful for you all to know it's now there:

https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo#logo-colors

Also, I put a link back to the trademark guidelines for questions that
are beyond the scope of the graphical usage guidelines:

https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo#usage-restrictions

Is the latter clear?  I'm thinking people might already go to 'Usage
Restrictions' to find information about the overall trademark usage.

Regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Releasing the CentOS Linux 7 Installation Guide

[Karsten Wade]

Hi all:

As some of you may be aware, for the last year we've been making slow
progress toward creating a CentOS 7-specific installation guide from
the HTML-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Installation Guide.

We now have a document that I think is quite good and is ready for
release as the CentOS Linux 7 Installation Guide:

https://github.com/CentOS/docs/blob/master/legacy_docs/index.html

Do you think we are ready to release? (And please provide your reasoning
if you vote with a -1 .)

  Note:  At this point we may not have a document that perfectly deals with
  references to "Red Hat". Where we could not easily rewrite or provide
  an alternate graphic, we often simply removed sections. When we release the
  document, we should note how to report bugs for the document.

Some items to do for release:

* Update the Revision History in the document. I recommend we rollover to
  2.0-0 to signify that this fork is a major revision of the document. The
  other option is to branch out from the 1.3-7 version we forked from that was
  released 16 Nov 2016. Thoughts?

* Figure out how to handle bug reports on bugs.centos.org. I volunteer to be
  either a default owner or always-Cc:'d for this bug tracker component. Can we
  have multiple owners? Who else wants to be involved with bug tracking?

* Then include content in the new guide as to where to file bugs.

* Update centos.org/docs and provide the writing/maintaining team with the
  preferred process to request /docs updates for future releases. (I don't
  think the CentOS Docs SIG has maintained an HTML-based document on centos.org
  before, has it?)

* Maybe a quick "marketing plan", meaning something that helps us talk about
  and promote the existence of the document. I started one here:

  
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WVgEJvgYfEMH1cmgteCnIDSizJKxDOBI7uyX4H34jac/edit?usp=sharing

* Updates to e.g. the wiki on getting help, channel topic on #centos, where
  else?

* What changes do we need to make to centos.org/docs?

Anything else to do for release?

Best regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade | Sr. Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io
gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Installation Guide for CentOS Linux 7

[Karsten Wade]

Some time ago I started working, with Jim Perrin, on manually
converting the single page HTML Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Installation
Guide to be rebranded and reworked for CentOS Linux 7.

https://github.com/CentOS/docs/tree/master/legacy_docs

I wanted to alert folks that this is being worked on, that we want to
get it completed ASAP to help support people migrating to CentOS Linux
7, and there are some areas I could use some help with.

One of my key concerns as a technical writer is that content needs to be
accurate and consistent. When there are inconsistencies or things are
labeled incorrectly -- such as the document saying CentOS Linux and the
screenshots saying Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- it greatly reduces the
trust of the reader. Especially considering we're dealing with
destructive installation methods, I don't want us to get things wrong. A
simple caveat may not be enough.

However ... redoing all the screenshots is a lot of work and I don't
know that we want to hold back releasing this document for that. On one
hand, anything we do is an improvement over the
less-accurate-for-CentOS-Linux RHEL install guide ... but this
blended/mixed set of inconsistencies might be worse for some users.

An ongoing updated to-do list is maintained here:

https://github.com/CentOS/docs/blob/master/legacy_docs/todo.md

Overview of needs
=

* Document needs to be rebranded as CentOS (Linux & Project):
  - Links
  - Examples
  - Screenshots
* How-to information needs to be stripped where it is not relevant:
  - Red Hat Subscription Manager
  - RHN & Satellite
  - Etc.
* How-to information needs to be fixed or created for how things are
done for CentOS:
  - Download images
  - Create install media
  - Do various tasks
  - Atomic Host how-to
* Work arounds for sections removed that mess with chapter numbering

Status
==

* Overall rebranding is completed, still working on some corner cases
(where search & replace is not as easy such as split lines and   lines)
* Internal links and section nesting seems OK but untested
* Some sections commented out until we decide if we want to
replace/rewrite them
* New content may be needed for e.g. Atomic Host and cloud images.

There are some other parts of the git repo that are placeholders such as
for AsciiDoc work that may happen within the CentOS Project.

Best regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade
Community Infrastructure Team : https://osci.io
Red Hat Open Source and Standards (OSAS) : @redhatopen
@quaid gpg: AD0E0C41




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Documentation on CBS

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 07/11/2016 09:48 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> AFAIK /HowTos/CommunityBuildSystem has always been the one
> referenced everywhere, and then also 
> https://wiki.centos.org//HowTos/CommunityBuildSystem/KojiOperations
>
> 
Maybe Brian should just link to those ones, as it appears that he
> copied/paste content from original page into the SIGGuide one

Clarification I gather is:

https://wiki.centos.org//HowTos/CommunityBuildSystem/

is the canonical source.

Brian & I are doing some work on the SIG Guide this week, we can make
it an action to have it [[Include()]] the above content in to the SIG
Guide so that there is one location to reference, update, edit, and
translate.

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten Wade
Community Infra & Platform (Mgr)
Open Source and Standards, @redhatopen
@quaid gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAleET+oACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEF2/QCfecxrb8uwUS9WrPRn32ZK4NhG
ViAAn24PDyga0axB/Zp/UPslt2ejsf2w
=ETXz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] discussions around upstream documentation

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 04/11/2016 09:18 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
> What are the thoughts or concerns about this sort of workflow
> change?

Any chance Moin Moin can store wiki source in git and sync
automatically with a central git repository?

It would provide another pathway to suggest edits to the wiki without
requiring wiki edit permissions.

For new documentation, e.g. layered project content from SIGs or
upstream documentation sources, I would think we'd want to skip a
conversion to/from Moin Moin and instead work directly in the sources
from upstream. Eases merging upstream, etc. Last Summer's GSoC
students implemented such a workflow.

Best,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten Wade
Community Infra & Platform (Mgr)
Open Source and Standards, @redhatopen
@quaid gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlcL4N8ACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHz/wCgm3Co0QAkcDhb6t1PDL51sZND
nggAniBSEE3KBnZvE2Zbr/h7Zb8y1Nt1
=Oy/2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] How GSoC project can fit in to CentOS Docs

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 08/03/2015 12:52 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> On 03/08/15 18:23, kunaal jain wrote:
> 
>> Would start with the note that the basic project is complete. I 
>> would be releasing the prototype on a separate thread. But for
>> the discussion sake the workflow will look like this : Authors 
>> contribute content in markdown format, on github. The pull
>> request created gets mirrored to pagure thus saving dependency on
>> github. Also the PR content is built using CI to preview how it
>> looks. The PR is two way synced between the platforms, so that
>> individual can use pagure or github. Once staff approves the
>> post, website is built and deployed.
> 
> 
> 
> So, trying to understand the goal : can you define what you mean
> by "website is built and deployed" ? Do you mean you produce
> MoinMoin compatible syntax and sorted by categories/hierarchy, to
> then be automatically synced to wiki.centos.org ? Or do you mean
> another (and so parallel) website ?

At the moment, it's a parallel website.

http://clown-olga-13325.bitballoon.com/

I agree that it made sense for the students to do a stand-alone
autobuild solution so they didn't have to dive in to dealing with wiki
as final destination. Publishing location /should/ be automated, but
may not be possible in all cases.

If we reach consensus that the Moin Moin wiki is the best publication
location for these short-form articles, we'll have to work through the
steps to get wiki markup and some way to easily
publish-with-editorial-controls.

> Wrt pagure, I admit I looked at it and found it cool, plus I know 
> Pierre-Yves (hey !). But wondering if adding 
> yet-another-git-server-plus-layer is the way to go in our infra,
> while all centos git repositories are hosted on a "gitblit powered"
> server (on git.centos.org)

Goal was not to add more Git layers of management, but to remove a
reliance on GitHub's closed-source task management layers, without
hassles of hooking in to Mantis (and not using Bugzilla.)

I agreed with going for the Pagure solution because the worst-case is
that we have to borrow Fedora's instance or host our own, and it's an
actively maintained tool for just this situation (getting a
GitHub-like issue tracking process for documentation with a FLOSS tool.)

I may be missing something here about simplicity, though -- we also
have the whole angle of building these docs with CI, so there are a
lot of "where does what pull from to do which to what" to consider.

> Is that possible to  have an overview of the infra and goals (aka
> the architecture) of this GSoC doc project ? that would help 
> understanding, as I agree that I'm currently lost, and I'm
> probably not the only one, also the reason for that thread :-)

I'd be totally happy to do this, what's the best medium? I could get
on a public Google Hangout with you, and then we could write up a
document from that?

There is a bit of infra that needs to be brought up and maintained --
that /should/ be written in to any documentation that Kunaal and Lei
have written, which is due by this week. Likely we'll need to take
their developer specs and convert them to operational specs.

The goal is to support a writing workflow that goes like this:

1. Author finds or writes appropriately licensed content.
   - Method works best for short-form (v. full manuals) content types.
2. Author is able to use Git-based tools to write and submit content.
3. Editors are able to use Git-based & FLOSS tools with notifications
to learn about documents in the edit-queue, read, and respond to
short-form articles.
4. At the end of this needs to be a way to i) pick up markup content
to publish, and/or ii) auto-publish once editor chooses to publish.

The specific details of how this is configured with the currently
coded solution is what Kunaal and Lei have been describing.

For 'Git-based writing tools' we have the ability to interact via
GitHub, using it's web-based text editing tools as well as remote
command line tooling with 'git'.

After a Pull Request is made to GitHub, an issues is opened in Pagure,
which acts as the task-tracking queue for editors.

Editors can then approve and, ideally, get pull in to git.centos.org
and automatically publish somewhere.

Where is somewhere?

What else is not explained enough above?

Let's dig in to those details to figure out the complexity and such
that is needed.

Regards,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXVJhMACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEF71gCgk425gU+IZzIksq1v50uRh5Tn
/I8An3KBlNFfwb+niYfVXG+LGuvOeJEN
=Lxea
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] How GSoC project can fit in to CentOS Docs

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

There have been some questions about how the GSoC project interacts
with the existing documentation work that happens around the wiki.

Let's get all the open questions in to this thread and discuss them.

Lei, Kunaal -- What other open questions do we have?

Anyone else with open questions?

The GSoC project is supposed to be additive to what we do -- an
additional way to get new contributions submitted, reviewed, and ready
for publishing.

Where things are published is still an open question for this group
(centos-docs) to decide.

The toolchain basically takes submissions in common markup formats
made via GitHub. It puts them in a queue for an editorial team to
review. When ready, the tool can publish or make content ready for
publishing.

The content could be new articles, or repurposed content from e.g.
blogs (with appropriate open licensing.) There is a lot of content out
there about how to do things with CentOS, but most of the original
authors aren't going to go through the process of requesting a wiki
account and publishing here.

For where to publish from the toolchain, if we want to keep all docs
in the wiki, we should plan to have the tool output to MoinMoin wiki
syntax so that one of the existing editors can copy/paste in to an
existing or new wiki article. This wiki publishing would work for
shorter form content.

So the new tool could be a way for people to submit edits to existing
wiki articles without having to get a wiki account.

Some open questions:

* Who can/wants to be on the editorial board?
* Where do we want to publish longer documents?

For example, if we had the sources for one of the RHEL documents in
Git, it would be straightforward to modify that document for CentOS,
and even add to it, via this new toolchain.

Would we want to put that in to a series of wiki articles? Or publish
it directly to centos.org/docs in HTML and PDF format?

Regards,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlW6QfUACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEE2mgCfdVVwHfQvVAJlKMMhHAiMxaM0
UwEAoIGEgCSZKB2DdCIzD/CwLousTW6R
=l4+O
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Update for FAQ - q.15 & q.31 update & merge

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2015 11:55 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> Call me picky but I'd rephrase The CentOS Project *ONLY* provides
> updates or other changes for the latest version of each major
> branch. to The CentOS Project provides updates or other
> changes*ONLY* for the latest version of each major branch.

Sorry, reading thread backwards so I replied to Alan, and I agree,
thanks for the catch.

> I am not a native English speaker so I might be wrong but I feel
> like the emphasis is better placed in the variant I suggested
> because it marks one of the major differences towards RH and the
> EUS/AUS mechanism that exists for RHEL. Heck, we might even add a
> reference to those a la "if you need active support for an older
> minor release please consider using  "

Well, *I* might not suggest putting that in :) but I won't disagree
with the idea. ;D

> And yes, this FAQ item becomes a bit longish...

We're pretty close to each of the previous, so overall we've cut the
size by at least 40%. :)

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlV3PaAACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEGStQCdG9I3vcrAbRx+puYzlO3p7SkM
Af8AoODVDs+7QqyglI1GHhQ5jqGUxRky
=LNgO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Update for FAQ - q.15 & q.31 update & merge

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 06/09/2015 02:10 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
> On 9 June 2015 at 07:55, Manuel Wolfshant
>  wrote:
>> 
> 
>> 
>> Call me picky but I'd rephrase The CentOS Project ONLY provides
>> updates or other changes for the latest version of each major
>> branch. to The CentOS Project provides updates or other changes
>> ONLY for the latest version of each major branch.
> 
> The latter is preferable to the former (says a native Englishman).

You are correct, thanks for the edit. Proper parsing of the former
actually says we do nothing but "provide updates and other changes"
when in fact we do many other things (including writing FAQs.) Thus
the latter is accurate. I'll fix and push the changes to the main site.

Also planning on taking the current UUID structure and putting them in
as anchors, but I wonder if the whole table of contents autolinking
magic is going to get reset? Does that mess with search results?
Google doesn't seem to use deep linking ... but people do in email and
forum posts.

I'm going to do the anchor trick and push ahead, looking to see if all
the deep links are affected. If so, I may revert and ... not sure.
Perhaps put a blank entry in q.15 pointing to q.31?

The only way I know around this with Moin Moin is to do anchors and
make up your own ToC manually. :/

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlV3PRgACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEEvTACfZ8mDZdj3/fKFUiGjs3Sz+bs9
dEUAoNp5V2C3+VLpD8Mh8vHriBj8SkgK
=UXhj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Update for FAQ - q.15 & q.31 update & merge

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 06/05/2015 01:52 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 08:30 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Folks:
>> 
>> A few of us (KB, Johnny, myself) have begun work on updating the
>> main FAQs on the CentOS wiki. Mainly that means looking over and
>> updating for any changes that have been going on in the last 18
>> months as the project has expanded to include SIG releases,
>> monthly updates of many new types, new hardware architectures,
>> and so forth.
>> 
>> For this first update we've got this from the FAQ:
>> 
>> q.15: 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-6e2c3746ec45ac314291746676032
1e8
>>
>> 
68f43c0e
>> q.31 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-dcca41e9a3d5ac4c6d900a991990f
d11
>>
>> 
930867d6
>> 
>> The first item is that these questions are repetitive, so I'd
>> like to combine them in to a single answer. Second is that
>> version numbering has expanded, so we need to cover monthly
>> updates and so forth.
>> 
>> Circling around on this, we ended up with the following complete 
>> rewrite that would replace q.31 and retire q.15 (thereby making
>> q.31 in to q.30.) How does this update sound?
>> 
>> If we're close enough, I'll push it to live at the start of next
>> week, and we can always continue iterating on it.
>> 
>> The text below is in Moin Moin format; I was going to do a diff 
>> between the versions but then we differed so wildly in combining
>> and rewriting that I think a mental diff will work better. A
>> formatted draft is here:
>> 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/KarstenWade/GeneralFAQUpdateq31q15
>> 
>> Thanks - Karsten
> 
> I'd say that at least the following paragraphs from q15 are worth 
> preserving: - Any point release is just a "snapshot" with previous
> updates, plus the latest batch of new upstream updates, rolled into
> a new [base] repo with an initially empty [updates] repo. - There
> is a CentOS Vault containing older CentOS trees. This vault is a 
> picture of the older tree when it was removed from the main tree,
> and does not receive updates. It should only be used for
> reference.
> 
> After " If you are using an older minor version than the latest in
> a given branch, then you are missing security and bugfix updates."
> I'd also emphasize that we offer no support for these
> configurations, something along: For this reason old minor releases
> are never supported. If you want/need to "freeze" at an old point
> release you are entirely on your own.
> 
> 
> wolfy, tired of people who fail to understand what minor releases
> are and keep pushing in IRC for support of old[er] stuff

I think those look pretty good especially if you think they can answer
confusion about community support for older minor versions. Included
here with some highlighting:

The size of this answer article is just a bit larger (looking) than
each of the previous two answers, which is good -- too many words
won't help. :)

I trimmed a bit more stuff -- repetitive phrasing and unrelated terms
- -- I think it's ready publish to the FAQ.

Regards,
- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlV2FswACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFswwCfToKp4r7eNXQvhmauG6n5qSTW
uHUAniYb4hIp9br7JvEnpRNvPAcl/S00
=IviX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Update for FAQ - q.15 & q.31 update & merge

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Folks:

A few of us (KB, Johnny, myself) have begun work on updating the main
FAQs on the CentOS wiki. Mainly that means looking over and updating
for any changes that have been going on in the last 18 months as the
project has expanded to include SIG releases, monthly updates of many
new types, new hardware architectures, and so forth.

For this first update we've got this from the FAQ:

q.15:
http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-6e2c3746ec45ac3142917466760321e8
68f43c0e
q.31
http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-dcca41e9a3d5ac4c6d900a991990fd11
930867d6

The first item is that these questions are repetitive, so I'd like to
combine them in to a single answer. Second is that version numbering
has expanded, so we need to cover monthly updates and so forth.

Circling around on this, we ended up with the following complete
rewrite that would replace q.31 and retire q.15 (thereby making q.31
in to q.30.) How does this update sound?

If we're close enough, I'll push it to live at the start of next week,
and we can always continue iterating on it.

The text below is in Moin Moin format; I was going to do a diff
between the versions but then we differed so wildly in combining and
rewriting that I think a mental diff will work better. A formatted
draft is here:

http://wiki.centos.org/KarstenWade/GeneralFAQUpdateq31q15

Thanks - Karsten

###
## begin
== How does CentOS versioning work? ==

 1. CentOS Linux currently has 3 ''major'' released branches that are
active:  CentOS-5, CentOS-6, and CentOS-7.
 1. CentOS Linux releases ''minor'' (point in time) versions of our
major branches. These minor versions are also sometimes called ''point
releases''. Two very important things about CentOS Linux branches are:
  1. The CentOS Project '''ONLY''' provides updates or other changes
for the latest version of each major branch. Thus, if the latest minor
version of CentOS-6 is version 6.6 then the CentOS Project only
provides updated software for this minor version in the 6 branch. If
you are using an older minor version than the latest in a given
branch, then you are missing security and bugfix updates.
  1. When setting up yum repositories on CentOS Linux you should
'''ONLY''' use the single digit for the active branch, which
corresponds to the CentOS Linux major branch.   For example,
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/ ,
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/ , or
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/ . This is because we move all older
minor branches to http://vault.centos.org/ . Remember from the prior
bullet point, no updates are ever added to minor versions of CentOS
Linux once in the vault.
 1. Since minor versions of CentOS are ''point in time'' releases of a
major branch, starting with CentOS-7, we are now using a date code in
our minor versions.  So you will see CentOS-7 (1406) or CentOS-7
(1503) as a version. This is so that one can know, from the release,
when it happened. In the above examples, the minor versions 1406 means
June 2014 and 1503 means March 2015. In older major branches of
CentOS, such as CentOS-6, we numbered things differently. Those
branches are numbered as 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, etc.
  1. You might be wondering why the change with CentOS-7.
   1. We are trying to make sure people understand they can NOT use
older minor versions and still be secure. Therefore, a date in the
minor version allows users to know with a glance when this minor
version was created. If it is older than many months, there is likely
a new version you should look for.
   1. As organizations move from individual servers having individual
functionality to virtual machine farms and cloud / container
implementations, the CentOS Project is now producing VM, cloud, and
container images as well as installer ISOs. These images have dates in
their name by design. We want users to easily be able to know what
major branch and minor release are in these images, again at a glance.
If your CentOS-7 images have 1504 (April 2015) or 20150402 (April 2nd,
2015) in the name then they are based on the latest release that comes
before this date ... in this case CentOS-7 (1503).
 1. You can see which source code from Red Hat Enterprise Linux was
used to create each minor version of CentOS Linux from the chart
entitled "Archived Versions" from http://wiki.centos.org/Download
## end
###

- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVx3MYACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFnVQCeL26bn92k1b4uGyZ0Ir07RDiy
QBcAoLfiIlveRdZejnyEC7iN4txpZaqT
=dM81
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://list

Re: [CentOS-docs] Resources Needed for Doc Toolchain Project [GSoC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 06/04/2015 12:58 PM, Pete Travis wrote:

> 
> I'm tentatively planning on working pagure[0] into the Fedora Docs 
> toolchain. It handles issue tracking, process
> documentation/contribution guidelines, and of course repo
> management and pull requests.  It might fit for CentOS docs as
> well.
> 
> [0] https://pagure.io/pagure

Oh now that is quite interesting news.

And it's a project from pingou (Pierre-Yves Chibon)!

Lei, Kunaal -- can we get you an IRC meeting with pingou? He's based
in France so a bit easier for you to reach for timezone coordination.
I'll be happy to be the odd-hours person e.g. late night for me, first
thing France morning, afternoon for Asia. How about tomorrow (Friday
05 June)? We can quickly compare Pagure to your matrix of other tools.

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVwzMMACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEGVngCfQmG7Ogmm/EFCa7Vp2J3Bzg3T
oKMAoKBPDZ8T9satUaytTn5KW7jy9K4f
=CWQF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Resources Needed for Doc Toolchain Project [GSoC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 06/01/2015 10:30 PM, Lei Yang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As discussed earlier about the workflow, I and Kunaal will need a 
> server space to host Bugzilla, a test repository at Github + a git
>  repository at git.centos.org . This is 
> temporary, required for development and testing.
> 
> Please let us know how do we obtain the same? We need it to get 
> started on our project.

Thanks for asking on centos-devel, I'll reply there with some
specifics on requesting resources.

I think you will get push back about Bugzilla. For example, someone
has to continue to administer the system after the summer is done. The
rest of the toolchain looks like it's something that the sysadmin team
can handle with the proper documentation. An entire Bugzilla instance
is another thing, however -- web server, PHP code, database, and so fort
h.

Are you sure that bugs.centos.org cannot work well enough?

Regards,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVwlhYACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEGtKwCgo3kWcXa9q5RuKSe+tx7u2Z7d
tnYAniz3jyxxHNwawnuzrOok99RWRrL2
=qVr5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Regarding GSoC project

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/30/2015 09:19 AM, Dougal Matthews wrote:
> An alternative approach would be to build the docs in CI and link
> to the built version in a comment on both systems.

This is an interesting idea. We'll end up wanting docs to build in the
CI anyway, so this could be done using e.g. a -draft tag so an initial
commit can be used to both build drafts and help with the review
process, then transition to not-draft.

We'd still have MarkDown preview in GitHub, but also have a version
rendered with the toolchain so we can also be debugging build problems
as well as content itself.

Regards,
- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVslWEACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEEplQCfaIyGOTJ4elJK6aENHU5mvkfk
OwUAni8y8loHZjtbN+pReYL1A4wXgDZB
=fueA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Regarding GSoC project

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/29/2015 12:33 PM, kunaal jain wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Over the last week, Lei and I have been researching about the
> review platform where the content submitted can be reviewed,
> commented, tagged and pushed. This will be an alternative to github
> pull requests interface, which will thus reduce our dependency on
> Github in case Github changes its API anytime in future.

Definitely I agree with that thinking.

One thing to consider is that some people may us the pull request
model and then not want to go further outside of the tool.

One way to think of this is to see if you can work with someone
entirely in GitHub, if that happens, maybe by having the content
reviewer do the shuffles with bug tracking.

> Even firefox is considering using Github as an alternative medium
> to receive contribution. 
> http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2015/01/12/utilizing-github-for-firefox-d
evelopment/
>
>  Lei made a great chart comparing the platforms.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9sUy41_Rk3KdGl4RVhDSXZIZmc/view?usp=
sharing

Were
> 
you able to compare with Mantis, which is what runs
http://bugs.centos.org?

What are the time implications with connecting to a bug/task tracking
tool?

I'm glad you are thinking about this at the start, in case you also
use GitHub in parallel with git comments and pull requests, as a way
to get a minimal feature set running.

I'll comment in other parts of this thread, to keep context.

Regards,

- - Karsten
> So overall Bugzilla looks a great option. But there is one major
> flaw, we need to view the article submitted at each point(code
> review) which bugzilla lacks.
> 
> The solution to this is creating a plugin for markdown previewing.
> 
> The typical workflow might look like this:
> 
> 1. Author writes content in markdown language. 2. Makes a pull
> request on github. 3. Corresponding to the pull request a issue is
> created on bugzilla. 4. CentOS staff can either review the article
> on github pull request, or on bugzilla. 5. Comments are two way
> synced. 6. At each point the article can be viewed on bugzilla,
> using an extension we propose to make. 7. After many iterations of
> commenting, and improving, article is finally accepted. 8. Staff
> tags it, and pushes to git.centos.org. 9. Using git.centos.org, new
> website is generated and pushed.
> 
> There are many challenging tasks in this, especially the bugzilla
> issue creation on pull request and two way comment sync. This has
> never been done before, but we looked at the API and think we can
> make it work. Another challenging task is markdown preview on
> bugzilla.
> 
> Please let us know, what you think about this?
> 
> Regards, Kunaal
> 
> 
> -- Regards, Kunaal Jain ​​
> 
> 
> 
> ___ CentOS-docs mailing
> list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> 

- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVslN4ACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEGrBQCggSwF5XlvvVoxquhk2HHp8F7k
z8oAoJxoO7etPolWuN+eeut9NWMX7ptS
=pwGB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Toolchain discussion 07:00 UTC 13 May in #centos-devel

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

http://www.centos.org/minutes/2015/may/centos-devel.2015-05-13-07.08.htm
l

Minutes summary from above:

==
#centos-devel: Docs toolchain planning
==


Meeting started by quaid at 07:08:25 UTC. The full logs are available at
centos-devel/2015/centos-devel.2015-05-13-07.08.log.html .



Meeting summary
- ---
* LINK: http://etherpad.osuosl.org/CentOS-Docs-toolchain   (quaid,
  07:11:22)
* LINK:

https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/7388044/6873628/b0b99aa4-d4d7
- -11e4-8aa6-7b25aa69585e.png
  (kunaaljain, 07:45:40)
* LINK: https://docs.docker.com/   (kunaaljain, 07:59:21)
* LINK:
  https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/?primary_filter=newes
t
  (yangl1996, 08:00:16)
* Need to figure out interaction with existing wiki content (refer in,
  publish to, etc.)  (quaid, 08:55:34)
* need to define the process and role for accepting changes in to
  git.centos.org  (quaid, 08:56:10)
* LINK: http://etherpad.osuosl.org/CentOS-Docs-toolchain   (yangl1996,
  09:01:53)

Meeting ended at 09:31:49 UTC.




Action Items
- 





Action Items, by person
- ---
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)




People Present (lines said)
- ---
* yangl1996 (51)
* kunaaljain (33)
* quaid (31)
* Arrfab (15)
* centbot (2)
* d0ugal (2)
* Bahhumbug (1)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVTWIYACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHZgQCgqXd2VT6flMyFFimc++clW29h
UasAn32egD2YC/I1MSejYW2cH2o4TIA1
=XN7+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Toolchain discussion 07:00 UTC 13 May in #centos-devel

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Just a heads up that we're pulling together a last-hour discussion
with the two GSoC students and myself in about 90 minutes in
#centos-devel to discuss how the docs toolchain project will shape up
- -- split the project, set timelines, and discuss resource needs.

We'll post a log after the meeting is done, just wanted to send out a
heads up in case anyone is a interesting in joining or lurking.

Regards,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVS4R0ACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEEAHwCg4R8FWTsAjDNhbqqjngJWoFvN
IhsAoNcO8TTe9eBiNPUevqooIfc/V5Z9
=j41w
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Welcome GSoC students, getting started

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I'd like to welcome the two Summer of Code students who will be building
different parts of the new CentOS documentation toolchain.

* Kunal Jain
* Lei Yang

Students -- welcome again, and thank you for your work this far in
helping define the project. Now we have the pleasure of working on the
two new scopes that will work interdependently and independently.

All of the discussion around this new toolchain has occurred on this
mailing list, however the final accepted proposals are behind the GSoC
webtool curtain. This is to our advantage, as we need to re-think the
project plans across two students.

As a refresher, here is the original idea:

http://wiki.centos.org/GSoC/2015/Ideas#docs-toolchain

And some relevant emails & threads:

- From here:

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-March/thread.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-April/thread.html

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-March/005593.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-March/005594.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-March/005618.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-March/005620.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-April/005623.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-April/005624.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-April/005629.html

In discussions with the two students, myself, and Shaun McCance, we
determined that we could effectively split up this project. That means
the students will need to generate new work plans around individual
scopes. These scopes will avoid overlap and interdependence so that
each student is able to be successful without the others' project.

So now the next fun part begins -- working out two scopes of work, the
timing (as Kunaal's and Lei's schedules differ by a bit on either end
of the summer), and what needs to be done in what order for all this
to work.

Cheers,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlVLJjQACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEEtnQCgsfpu4/EkRyShOKpgOuLZDUDz
qO8AoOGTLXIMBWgmd6dg2NW9lR3H42y0
=TgvW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Website Request, add link to release notes on download page

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/28/2015 03:47 PM, William Nelson wrote:
> Could a link to the release notes ( 
> http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS7 ) be added to 
> http://www.centos.org/download/
> 
> I'm a Linux beginner, I was able to successfully download CentOS 7
> using the downloads page but once I had the .iso, I wanted to
> verify the integrity of the download using MD5. I was eventually
> able to find the release notes on the wiki but as a beginner, it
> was kind of a big step.

Great suggestion, thanks!

I happen to be working on some changes to the download page, I've now
included a block calling out the release notes with a link.

Regards,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlUZvqQACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEGYiwCgwlIpJaCdB6rqeUQkZCZBmeu5
ap4AoK+Gcfx+aJwbfkX6yvgGRZzWn/vy
=LPEu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Docs strategy and tactics [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/25/2015 01:19 AM, kunaal jain wrote:
> Hi Kartsen,
> 
> you'll have my proposal by the end of the day. I am not good at 
> writing content. :(  I have sorted out all the technicalities
> though.
> 
> Regards, Kunal Jain

Thanks, we'll start working on the proposal with you and other
interested mentors now that the initial deadline is here.

- - Karsten

> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Karsten Wade 
> wrote: Kunaal:
> 
> I know you are still researching, but I think you may have enough
> to write up your proposal in the Melange tool. The deadline for 
> applications to be input is 27 March at 19:00 UTC. However, that
> is followed by a few more weeks for you to work with me and other 
> mentors/helpers to refine the application. So your next step is to 
> work on and submit that proposal.
> 
> https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/profile/register/student/google/gsoc
>
> 
2015
> 
> Once we have you (and any others) in the Melange system, I'm going
> to work with Shaun and any others to help narrow my scope to
> something that is and doable in a summer's time. Shaun's warnings
> about the difficulties of syncing with an upstream are really
> important, and we may want to think of a way to loosely couple
> rather than try to solve the problem in general.
> 
> If folks don't mind, I'd appreciate continuing at least some of
> this discussion on this list -- we need to make sure that this
> toolchain lines up with our process, and that process is itself
> sane and doable.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> - Karsten
> 
> On 03/17/2015 03:21 AM, kunaal jain wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Shaun McCance
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Just to throw another wrench in: I don't know what
>>>>> DigitalOcean's docs are like, but Linode generally provides
>>>>> their guides for Ubuntu, Debian, and CentOS. However, for
>>>>> whatever reason, they tend to do Ubuntu first. So there are
>>>>> bunches of guides without CentOS versions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> They do allow people outside Linode to submit guides. So
>>>>> outside of normal CentOS docs, a useful exercise would be
>>>>> for people to port non-CentOS guides on Linode (and other
>>>>> places) to CentOS. It would increase mindshare for CentOS.
>>>> 
>>>> I think with porting of content, main focus should be on new 
>>>> content. If we create the complete documentation procedure
>>>> i.e. automating this long procedure > writing content in
>>>> markup language -> pull request -> discussion -> changes ->
>>>> Identify the module and upstream -> converting content in
>>>> relevant design, style -> pushing to upstream -> updating
>>>> CentOS docs -> update website.
>>>> 
>>>> If this toolchain becomes friendly, I am sure even the
>>>> normal CentOS user, if learns new thing, would happy to write
>>>> a document about it and push it to us. Even upstream software
>>>> benefit with this documentation .
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sure. I've dealt with quite a bit of this while working on
>>>>> GNOME docs. It's challenging, but mostly enjoyably so. I
>>>>> mentioned to Karsten off-list that, if you want a usable
>>>>> system at the end, it's important to really define the
>>>>> workflow and what tools are needed. I've had quite a
>>>> 
>>>> Hence this thread comes into existence on this mailing list
>>>> to discuss the workflow and tools with those people who
>>>> actually deal with this on frequently basis.
>>>> 
>>>> This was my attempt to start discussion on technical aspect
>>>> of this. 
>>>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-March/005594.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 
few GSoC projects that just ended up as interesting experiments,
>>>>> but never got used. Interesting experiments can be fine,
>>>>> but not if your documentation strategy depends on them.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree. But as Jason said we need to experiment, give people
>>>> this new option.
>>>> ___ CentOS-docs
>>>> mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
>>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>>>> 
> 
> 
>> ___ CentOS-docs
>> mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> ___ CentOS-docs mailing
> list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> 

- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlUV0w4ACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEEK3gCfW4XCPi4lQ2ACy9mvAcbEY4Q6
3kkAn3NUiG+VIcAWNeaU6XYrQ0t4pE4s
=rcTM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Docs strategy and tactics [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Kunaal:

I know you are still researching, but I think you may have enough to
write up your proposal in the Melange tool. The deadline for
applications to be input is 27 March at 19:00 UTC. However, that is
followed by a few more weeks for you to work with me and other
mentors/helpers to refine the application. So your next step is to
work on and submit that proposal.

https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/profile/register/student/google/gsoc
2015

Once we have you (and any others) in the Melange system, I'm going to
work with Shaun and any others to help narrow my scope to something
that is and doable in a summer's time. Shaun's warnings about the
difficulties of syncing with an upstream are really important, and we
may want to think of a way to loosely couple rather than try to solve
the problem in general.

If folks don't mind, I'd appreciate continuing at least some of this
discussion on this list -- we need to make sure that this toolchain
lines up with our process, and that process is itself sane and doable.

Regards,

- - Karsten

On 03/17/2015 03:21 AM, kunaal jain wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Shaun McCance 
> wrote:
>> Just to throw another wrench in: I don't know what DigitalOcean's
>> docs are like, but Linode generally provides their guides for
>> Ubuntu, Debian, and CentOS. However, for whatever reason, they
>> tend to do Ubuntu first. So there are bunches of guides without
>> CentOS versions.
>> 
>> They do allow people outside Linode to submit guides. So outside
>> of normal CentOS docs, a useful exercise would be for people to
>> port non-CentOS guides on Linode (and other places) to CentOS. It
>> would increase mindshare for CentOS.
> 
> I think with porting of content, main focus should be on new
> content. If we create the complete documentation procedure i.e.
> automating this long procedure > writing content in markup
> language -> pull request -> discussion -> changes -> Identify the
> module and upstream -> converting content in relevant design, style
> -> pushing to upstream -> updating CentOS docs -> update website.
> 
> If this toolchain becomes friendly, I am sure even the normal
> CentOS user, if learns new thing, would happy to write a document
> about it and push it to us. Even upstream software benefit with
> this documentation .
> 
>> 
>> Sure. I've dealt with quite a bit of this while working on GNOME
>> docs. It's challenging, but mostly enjoyably so. I mentioned to
>> Karsten off-list that, if you want a usable system at the end,
>> it's important to really define the workflow and what tools are
>> needed. I've had quite a
> 
> Hence this thread comes into existence on this mailing list to
> discuss the workflow and tools with those people who actually deal
> with this on frequently basis.
> 
> This was my attempt to start discussion on technical aspect of
> this. 
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-March/005594.html
>
> 
>> few GSoC projects that just ended up as interesting experiments,
>> but never got used. Interesting experiments can be fine, but not
>> if your documentation strategy depends on them.
> 
> I agree. But as Jason said we need to experiment, give people this
> new option. ___ 
> CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> 


- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlUQrTkACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEH45ACgnqlD34nmxNGVdZoikHq4tso5
oaQAn0Yy8BNMZqXQpCgZc5n0+ZF85d5Z
=4bxB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Docs strategy and tactics [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/16/2015 04:05 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
> We've been having a very similar conversation in the Fedora Docs 
> group.   I have a crude plan for the tooling part, to extend
> buildbot to address this; the idea is that you feed it git repos
> containing documentation in whatever supported format, some
> metadata is extracted, the content is built to html, then a
> navigation portal is built using the extracted metadata.  Bonus,
> continuous integration of translations from Zanata or Transifex can
> be built in too.  Changes are triggered by commit polling, the
> operating theory is that you'll have some branches of a repo
> designated for production/publishing, one might be the 'official
> prelease drafts', the rest just get validation.
> 
> Right now, this is just an ansible playground living at 
> https://github.com/immanetize/anerist/tree/ansible but I intent to 
> cludge together python modules to extend the buildbot BuildFactory
> class so it's a proper redistributable thing instead of a massive
> master.cfg .   If it sounds interesting to you, I'm sure the effort
> could benefit from the involvement of people with more expertise.

Not surprising that we're approaching similar solutions from different
directions, as my community docs DNA and experience is rooted in the
Fedora Project. (Or you could say I'm partially to blame for how
things got the way they are in Fedora, and want to save such mistakes
on the CentOS Docs side. :) )

Let's definitely see if we can craft solution vectors that approach a
common point. I like your CI approach overall, it layers nicely on top
of what I proposed. (I also didn't address translations other than in
style, but I think CentOS Project will quickly want to get there.)

Regards,

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlUHfYMACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFJhQCcDcUaxBITmOC+7VAPJxCvzRqm
6uoAnj/s+kVok7jrosc2IkrvRHhVFtDv
=Kihy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Docs strategy and tactics [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/16/2015 02:12 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
> Good info. Different strokes, etc., only way to judge is through
> results. Wikis are certainly a well-known sort of tool, if ppl
> don't realize they can make a change, they definitely won't.

I've wondered about that effect on ovirt.org, which is a clever hacked
skin on top of MediaWiki. It hides the [edit] button for those not
logged in (and moves the login controls to lower prominence in the
footer), so most people aren't aware it's a MediaWiki. Perhaps they
don't think they can contribute? (Of course, I think that MW is still
running the system of 'need to ask to get an account', thereby making
drive-by difficult.)

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlUHeskACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEH2VQCg3TN8NhrFWzOnVmhXXKuzL6X2
p3UAniFXogEXCMz9mfkkz7+ur/duuCLn
=X7b0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Docs strategy and tactics [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/16/2015 01:42 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Prominent wiki-like controls are important to getting drive-by
> edits, and I am personally a fan of the in-place editing experience
> you get from a good wiki.

I wonder if we can find a way to make the "Edit this page on GitHub"
more obvious then?

Because I agree, the [edit] link on WikiMedia sites (for example) is a
clear invitation. (And I know anonymous edits are a pathway to deep
frustration, lowering barriers for some while making others' lives
overwhelming ... but the clear invitation is a UX piece we can keep.)

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlUHelgACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEGJgQCdFvC130O52nOJ8DF3bao/CkFJ
3OsAniw/XfI7I/bnyhRTPCcicKyIkZE8
=qU0s
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Docs strategy and tactics [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/16/2015 11:33 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
> My only question is, how do we determine what goes in the wiki vs
> what goes in git? The flow/format between the two is a bit
> different. Or is this development the first step in the transition
> away from the wiki to another medium?

That's a good question, and I don't have it answered. :) It has to do
with our intention/thinking as a group.

I don't see a reason to move away from the wiki as a
contributor-focused area, for example. It self-organizes fairly well,
and when people need to write something easily-enough at a centos.org
domain it lets folks do that fairly well. But I'm picking a
fairly-small focus area (docs for contributors), as we'll have to add
people to the wiki, curate the content a bit, etc.

This is why I'm thinking the short-form how-to-do-stuff-on-CentOS is a
chance to break away from the wiki with a new, lower-barriers toolset
and process without having to deal with "should we wiki or should we not?"

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlUHMq8ACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFVLQCgxmiVkcnoBLfF59UTDkwIeGX3
nxEAoMuNEdj/piEQ8VmSO6smbFNHUNYF
=6zZE
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Docs strategy and tactics [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I've been thinking for a little while, and talking with people, about
what would be a good documentation strategy for the CentOS Project.

== tl;dnr aka Summary

This is a proposal around creating new, short-format
documentation about doing cool new things on top of CentOS
Linux. These docs would support the work of the various SIGs (Cloud,
Storage, Virt, etc.), in some cases living in the upstream project and
rebuilt in to CentOS by SIGs.

== Overview

When it comes to all the documentation we can think about, there are
several areas with clear importance:

1. Base CentOS Linux materials, which are numerous and include the
upstream RHEL documentation set. These are focused on installation,
configuration, and administration of various parts of a CentOS Linux
instance or set of instances.

2. Doing cool things on top of CentOS Linux.

3. Content for working within the project, such as part of a SIG, how to
ask questions on IRC, and how to conduct oneself on mailing lists.

For item 3, we have some fairly robust and growing content, and I think
that can continue to grow somewhat organically. We may want to adopt
tooling and workflow from this proposal as it matures.

For item 1, we are currently blocked from moving ahead by not being
able to easily rebrand and reuse the RHEL doc set without the XML
sources. Reworking external content is also an idea, but a similar
pain for different reasons. I want to set aside this item for the
purposes of this thread.

Item 2 is the one where we can get some great traction:

* Content that shows how to do things on top CentOS Linux is key for
adoption of new use cases.
* It's an area where we can lower the barriers to contribution greatly.
* Many upstream projects can benefit from better content on how to use
their software on CentOS Linux, and the Project benefits from the shared
exposure.

The below strategy proposal is focused around item 2.

## BEGIN PROPOSAL

  "You've just installed CentOS Linux, great, congratulations -- you
  now have an expensive heater. What people need is content on how to
  /do something/ with that installation."

  -- Jim Perrin

== Overview

The overall idea is two basic parts:

1. Focus on short-form, how-to/tutorial content. In many cases, multiple
docs/articles are linked together to show the various steps. For
example, these ARMv8 posts from Jim:

http://seven.centos.org/2015/03/centos-linux-7-and-arm/
http://seven.centos.org/2015/03/building-centos-linux-7-for-armv8/

2. Docs that are about combining an upstream (usually via a SIG) either
i) live in the upstream repo and are rebuilt in to CentOS, or ii) live
in CentOS but are shared/socialized into the upstream project and its
ecosystem.

Goal here is to minimize our own ongoing maintenance by following the
same "upstream first, carry minimal patches" philosophy that goes in to
the way Fedora is built and RHEL is maintained.

This is an example of an upstream we could contribute in to, using
OpenShift Origin on top of CentOS Linux:

https://blog.openshift.com/new-platform-new-docs-part/

A workflow might go like this; this is deliberately tooling unspecific,
more on tools below.

1. A person has an idea, a draft, or polished piece of content that is
about doing something with CentOS Linux. If properly licensed, it can
be from an outside person brought in to the Project by one of us.
(I.e., you find a great how-to licensed CC BY SA.)

2. Content is brought to centos-docs@centos.org for review of the next
step.

3. CentOS Docs SIG[1] reviews and decides next approach:

  3.1 If the doc is CentOS Linux or Project specific, canonical source
goes to git.centos.org & is published to centos.org/docs. It may require
conversion to the preferred source format for building as a doc.

  3.2 If the doc fits perfectly within an upstream as an example of
how to deploy or use the upstream software on the CentOS platform, we
push doc to the appropriate upstream(s). Link or copy is carried at
centos.org/docs and appropriate wiki pages.

  3.3 Unclear where doc fits, so author and SIG members engage with
upstream project(s) to find out best way forward.

   3.3.1 Write down each upstream preference as we learn.

4. Content is prepared for target location and delivered.

  4.1 Document is edited for style, grammar, punctuation, etc.

  4.2 Document is edited for ease of translation.

  4.3 Conversion to a standard format, if required.

  4.4 Check-in to version controlled system.

5. Publicity around document being available -- @centos, proper links
across CentOS wiki and at /docs, possibly a blog post highlighting a new
series of content, etc.

  5.1 Potential interaction with Promo SIG here.

== Tooling

There are a few levels to think about here where it comes to thinking
about a chunk of content:

A. The markup used, standards around how it's written (avoid idioms,
use the Oxford comma, etc.)

B. Tools for editing that don't drive people crazy.

C. Tools to

Re: [CentOS-docs] http://www.centos.org/ Help menu anchor

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 01/02/2015 01:27 PM, PatrickD Garvey wrote:
> On http://www.centos.org/, the Help in the navbar is described by
> the anchor
> 
>  href="http://wiki.centos.org/Documentation?action=show&redirect=GettingHelp
>
> 
http://wiki.centos.org/Documentation?action=show&redirect=GettingHelp>">Help
> 
> Why does it contain ?action=show&redirect=GettingHelp ? It
> seems to me Documentation would be sufficient.

That is a bit weird, I'd presumed it was a link to GettingHelp and
then got redirected, rather than containing the redirect. I suspect we
missed that when the website content was created, likely just copying
and pasting in the URL without thinking further.

It's actually curious to me that it's /not/ GettingHelp, as that is a
category that includes Documentation (but not the reverse), and seems
to describe the page content better. Anyone here know the reason for
the rename/redirect?

It's an easy fix, I've attached a patch for Jim or someone to approve
and push.

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41ter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlSp0FEACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEF3dACfXxdPha3bcPT4WWJVxaUZb8jI
rsYAnjWpzrpDqT/JjtNKioTxG9mFb5+i
=xrP0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
From 073b28338551c37c38c35deb77c2b71a6bcd8622 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Karsten Wade 
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 15:42:46 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Making direct URL rather than using MoinMoin redirect.

---
 layouts/navbar.haml | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/layouts/navbar.haml b/layouts/navbar.haml
index 258a6e1..6a92711 100644
--- a/layouts/navbar.haml
+++ b/layouts/navbar.haml
@@ -60,4 +60,4 @@
   %a( href="/keys") GPG Key Info
 
 %li
-  %a( href="http://wiki.centos.org/Documentation?action=show&redirect=GettingHelp"; ) Help
+  %a( href="http://wiki.centos.org/Documentation"; ) Help
-- 
1.9.3

___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] A Question of Style

[Karsten Wade]

On 12/23/2014 05:02 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:29 PM, PatrickD Garvey
>  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I'm not referring to the username used by a particular person
>> while using a CentOS community resource. I'm trying to understand
>> if the document example should use an actual person's username (a
>> security risk increase. That's half that person's credentials.)
>> or a pattern that refers to no one, such as "username".
>> 
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking of the examples found on a page like this
> one:
> 
> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/I_need_the_Kernel_Source
> 
> Depending on whether a command is supposed to be run by root or by
> a non-root user, the command line prompt changes between:
> 
> [root@host]#
> 
> and
> 
> [user@host]$
> 
> Akemi

Ah, yes, that makes sense (as to what Patrick is asking, and your reply.)

I've tended to prefer to avoid all that, though, but that is based in
my experience in specific tech writer teams. (Fedora Docs and RHEL docs.)

Rather than require one to be logged in as one user(type) or another,
I would suggest we consider dropping the command prompt entirely and
focus on making the command work /no matter what/. E.g.:

chmod 744 /path/to/file
ls -hal /path/to file

v.

su -c "chmod 744 /path/to/file"
su -c "ls -hal /path/to/file":

This used to be consistent in Red Hat documentation, but I'm not sure
of the current practice. I'd definitely consider the benefits of
aligning with upstream RHEL docs in this case.

Anyway, the point is to create a command that is more like ... well,
like this:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_syntax_and_markup#Writing_Example_Commands

... that is, a command that works regardless of which user is logged
in and whether 'sudo' is enabled or not. (If no sudo, then one should
have the root password or the problem to solve is different (getting
root access); if one has sudo enabled, then it's simpler to move from
'su -c' to 'sudo'.)

Just another way to look at it. And I think we need a bit more
information on usptream doc usage as that may drive a decision a bit
so whatever we do lines up easily with that.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] A Question of Style

[Karsten Wade]

On 12/23/2014 03:56 PM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 December 2014, PatrickD Garvey
>  wrote:
> 
>> In 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute#head-42b3d8e26400a106851a61aebe5c2c
>>
>> 
ca54dd79e5 the standard for the wiki username is established as
>> FirstnameLastname.
>> 
>> In http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Centpkg, created and edited by 
>> BrianStinson, the Community Build System username is shown as 
>> bstinson
> 
> If I understand your question correctly, your name as a wiki
> *author* is FirstnameLastname.
> 
> When giving examples of commands, output, etc., you can use
> whatever you want. Sometimes you have to use the user "root" in an
> example.

In other words, one can choose whatever username is preferred for
community systems such as git.centos.org and cbs.centos.org -- for
example, my commmunity username is always 'quaid' (when I can obtain
it.) But the wiki stands alone in requesting that document authors use
a "real name", i.e., FirstnameLastname of the autheor. E.g., my
username on wiki.centos.org is KarstenWade. The same is true for all
other project members that I have seen.

FWIW, I don't follow this practice in other locations. For example, on
the Fedora Wiki I am 'Quaid' and on Wikipedia I am 'iquaid', the
latter being my preference when straight 'quaid' is not available to me.

The FirstnameLastname preference for the CentOS wiki is a bit of
legacy, and makes sense to follow simply for that reason unless there
is a better reason to change it.

Regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Fwd: [CentOS Wiki] Update of "HowTos/Custom Kernel" by AkemiYagi

[Karsten Wade]

On 12/15/2014 03:52 PM, PatrickD Garvey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Akemi Yagi 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alan Bartlett 
>> wrote:
>>> On 15 December 2014 at 23:04, PatrickD Garvey
>>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
> The following page has been changed by AkemiYagi:
> 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Custom_Kernel?action=diff&rev2=179&rev1=178


>> 
I know I'm new around here and this is probably a nitpick, but
>> shouldn't the
 name of this wiki article be "HowTos/CustomKernel", not
 "HowTos/Custom Kernel"? That is, remove the blank space in
 the name?
 
 Just looking for CentOS community practice guidance, thank
 you.
>>> 
>>> Look closely and you will see that the string is actually 
>>> "HowTos/Custom_Kernel".
>>> 
>>> Alan.
>> 
>> In addition to what Alan pointed out, I'd like to say that this 
>> article has been cited/referenced/quoted in many places, in many 
>> occasions. We'd rather not change the URL at this point.
>> 
>> Akemi
>> 
> 
> Keeping in mind, I am merely trying to understand the CentOS
> community practice. I understand the concern and the courtesy that
> generates it.
> 
> Doesn't the wiki automatically generate a redirect page when a page
> is renamed? Or if not, isn't there an ability to manually write a
> redirect page?

I'm with you in trying to understand and follow practices, in some
cases there may not have been perfect adherence or even a guideline.

Maybe this is a case to leave the original page alone and build a
redirect from the proper CamelCase page?

I.e.

HowTos/CustomKernel => HowTos/Custom_Kernel

I guess that doesn't bother me because I prefer the MediaWiki style of
page naming (no FakeNesting/Pages, no CamelCase.) I agree an argument
can be made for:

HowTos/Custom_Kernel => HowTos/CustomKernel

While I do love consistency, whatever is best for users is of a higher
priority here.

Regards,

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] A request for help managing wiki permissions

[Karsten Wade]

I'd like to help too, helps me keep busy. :)

--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade .:. CentOS doer of stuff

From: Jim Perrin 
Sent: Oct 24, 2014 1:33 PM
To: Mail list for wiki articles
Subject: Re: [CentOS-docs] A request for help managing wiki permissions

>
>
> On 10/24/2014 11:46 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: 
>
> > If you're willing to participate and you're known to us, please 
> > volunteer in this thread. 
>
>
> Thanks to everyone who's volunteered. I need to test the implementation 
> bits and hope to have this in place by COB monday.
>
>
> -- 
> Jim Perrin 
> The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org 
> twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 
> ___ 
> CentOS-docs mailing list 
> CentOS-docs@centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs 
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Securing SSH --> Change ports

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/02/2014 09:11 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> Incidentally I am a fan of using iptables (recent match) to limit
> the number of admissible attempts from any given IP to connect to
> sshd ( yes, I know, it has nothing to do with the initial concern
> you raised )

FWIW, I think this is an equally fair approach, in that e.g. a dozen
attempts makes sense to block against -- if a user has 12 failed
attempts, they are misremembering their password and need to do a
recovery via another sysadmin.

Honestly probably a better approach than STO via changing to
unassigned privileged port.

- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlQuOOoACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHWCACghGkJwVXG0Ke4yrs7nRF87BGF
X78AoJVdrzjm72+pyncl5GYe/CHkcPvc
=/F20
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Securing SSH --> Change ports

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/02/2014 04:47 PM, Theodor Sigurjon Andresson wrote:
> To change it to unassigned privileged port would be a much better 
> idea if the user insists on changing it. I personally don't like
> the idea of security through obscurity at all. However if I
> remember correctly there are some programs that depend on SSH to be
> run on port 22. Usually easily changed but sometimes it can't be. I
> might be wrong though.

When I've changed ports, it's always been to a privileged port mainly
for the reasons you identify as risks. I usually do it to quite
logwatch complaining at all the false login attempts on port 22. I
know there are probably better ways to deal with that, but when it
comes to machines that are designed to be shelled in to from various
IP addresses, it's harder to design a firewall or hosts.deny that has
a low enough barrier.

- - Karsten

>  From: 
> centos-docs-boun...@centos.org [centos-docs-boun...@centos.org] on 
> behalf of Karsten Wade [kw...@redhat.com] Sent: Thursday, October
> 02, 2014 22:49 To: centos-docs@centos.org Subject: Re:
> [CentOS-docs] Securing SSH --> Change ports
> 
> On 10/02/2014 03:45 PM, Theodor Sigurjon Andresson wrote:
>> In there you are almost telling people that security through 
>> obscurity is a good way. That might sometimes be true but in this
>>  case it could mean that you would be handing passwords and other
>>  data out.
> 
>> When you start SSH on port 22 it is done with root privileges 
>> because the root user is the only one that can use ports below 
>> 1024. Root is the only user that can listen to that port or do 
>> something with it. If you move the port to  for example you 
>> move SSH to a port that can be used with out a privileged user. 
>> This would mean I could write a script that listens to port 
>>  and mimics SSH to capture the passwords. Changing the port of
>> SSH to  or anything above 1024 makes SSH less secure. Pretty 
>> ironic that this is in the "Securing SSH" chapter.  This should 
>> never be done.
> 
>> Location: 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH#head-3579222198adaf43a3ecbdc438ebce74da40d8ec
>
>>
>> 
> 
> username: TheodorAndresson
> 
>> ___ CentOS-docs 
>> mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> 
> 
> What do you think about using a privileged but unassigned port
> such as 101?
> 
> - Karsten ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs 
> ___ CentOS-docs
> mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> 

- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlQuOBYACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFsYACgpjpMPRU1zEo49A+eQ5/3kwvG
BYUAn30b8A69+np+/77RD+lUGm9oxT6W
=0eLJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Securing SSH --> Change ports

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/02/2014 03:45 PM, Theodor Sigurjon Andresson wrote:
> In there you are almost telling people that security through
> obscurity is a good way. That might sometimes be true but in this
> case it could mean that you would be handing passwords and other
> data out.
> 
> When you start SSH on port 22 it is done with root privileges
> because the root user is the only one that can use ports below
> 1024. Root is the only user that can listen to that port or do
> something with it. If you move the port to  for example you
> move SSH to a port that can be used with out a privileged user.
> This would mean I could write a script that listens to port 
> and mimics SSH to capture the passwords. Changing the port of SSH
> to  or anything above 1024 makes SSH less secure. Pretty ironic
> that this is in the "Securing SSH" chapter.  This should never be
> done.
> 
> Location:
> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH#head-3579222198adaf43a3ecbdc438ebce74da40d8ec
>
> 
username: TheodorAndresson
> 
> ___ CentOS-docs mailing
> list CentOS-docs@centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> 

What do you think about using a privileged but unassigned port such as
101?

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlQt1pcACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEEpMACeMdWaOLnXlwJNzKKGjhGopviq
TVkAoJXSaHTe/7PmdAEhzzmSjkzL02es
=y+y6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Syntax for ACLs?

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/30/2014 09:45 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> Is there better documentation on setting up ACLs for the wiki than 
> what's here? 
> (http://wiki.centos.org/SyntaxReference?action=show&redirect=centoswiki%2FSyntaxReference)

FWIW,
> 
I've been not using ACLs, meaning I think I've left any page I
write as open for all writers/editors (which is fine with me, I prefer
a flat ACL structure for 99% of wiki content.) Also, I don't think I
have permissions to set ACLs in all cases, where I've tried I've been
bounced.

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlQrEc8ACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEEgdwCgtoHKcyudn+9TvzvLKBdp4Ps3
wbkAn3nHVIwtT753bEa/A9TopNwiobhC
=rFkI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] unsubscribing because...

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 02/20/2014 02:31 AM, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> I think it's a sad sign when the mailing list is more about how to 
> manage access to the wiki than actually managing contributions and
> the content. I don't really have any confidence that centos wants
> a vibrant community. The recent change list at 
> http://wiki.centos.org/RecentChanges isn't really a good sign.
> 
> Sorry, but I felt if I simply unsubscribed and disappeared
> quietly, I'd not be doing anyone else any favours.

Ironically, just yesterday KB sent email here on the very topic of
contributions and content. There was also a bit of chatter on
centos-devel a few weeks ago about a documentation focused SIG.

I think the last six weeks have been quite a whirlwind with all the
new activity in the CentOS Project, and I'll admit that the months
leading up to that were very busy for KB, Johnny, Jim, and Fabian in
getting ready for the mash-up with Red Hat. In all of that, we talked
many times about how to vitalize the CentOS wiki and documentation
community.

Paul, thanks for the note from a canary-in-the-coal-mind perspective.
I hope the next time you look at what's going on with wiki and docs in
CentOS, you're pleasantly surprised.

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlMGNHEACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEE6DQCdFgQO2K8ILIqD2QfRiHWizA90
4q8AniEmGMnVYqIDcwGsgHbTynPlYS5P
=UTb5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

[CentOS-docs] Wiki submissions

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I'd like to start making formal submissions to the wiki. I'm
back-filling this request as Jim Perrin already added me to the wiki
edit group. I'm relearning how Moin Moin access works (it's been a
while but Fedora used to use Moin) and I've been using the MediaWiki
style of edit/contributions so I'll need to re-adjust to how this
community works.

* Create a login with a username in the format:
  - http://wiki.centos.org/KarstenWade

* Subscribe to the CentOS-docs mailing list
  - done

* Send a message to that mailinglist using centos-docs@centos.org after
you received the subscription notification. In that mail provide at
least the following information:

your FirstnameLastname username
  - KarstenWade 

the proposed subject of your Wiki contribution(s)
  - Description and process for a variant-maintaining SIG; Governing
Board process pages; Core SIG documentation; Infrastructure SIG
documentation;
  - Google Summer of Code pages
  - General technical documentation about the Project (contributing,
using, etc.) or CentOS Linux
  - Wiki gardening (clean-up and edit of existing content)
  - More as time and projects require.

the proposed location of your Wiki contribution(s)
  - SpecialInterestGroups/ (SIGs/)
  - Board/
  - Infrastructure/
  - Core/
  - GSoC/
  - Documentation/?

We also encourage you to request and to maintain a personal homepage
with your contact information. Some people also use their homepage to
keep a note of their edits, or as a place to experiment for testing
content layout, editing commands, etc.
  - http://wiki.centos.org/KarstenWade

Thanks - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLxaXoACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFTAACfUz/nWR6ZjfUjvCko7cZAZQ9T
TWMAniWPbTX26ytnOu0PIVB5QpVVWH18
=Fm2+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Request for access to wiki

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 01/26/2014 12:57 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> moin has cascading acl's - so we could have a setup where people
> with aCL's on a page are able to add more acl's to that page itself
> and sub-pages; Given enough people subscribed to all content
> changes ( the editgroup ? ) that might be an easier way to solve
> the same problem ( and perhaps more predictable ).

Making sure I get this right ... Moin Moin page nesting allows us to
create an arbitrary group and assign them permissions to edit that
page, as well as add other people to the group? Oh, I recall now, it's
the #acl setting ...

I'm interested in working out how to lower the barriers for the wiki,
but it's been a long time since I worked with Moin Moin - I've gotten
used to the more flat structure of MediaWiki (and generally prefer
that anyone with wiki edit access can edit any page of the wiki.)

What is the group thinking here? I may propose that we add wiki
editors to the overall ACL rather than specific areas. What now are
the advantages to controlling the ACLs on a specific area of the wiki?

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\  CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLu3ZEACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFXcQCeLYuQV/9LTSjyNSYUBLEXqxd1
+ykAoLyY7NJ447qlFuM2V5togBAuyYXy
=A1XE
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Request for access to wiki

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 01/23/2014 12:53 PM, R P Herrold wrote:

> This is part of a piece I sent this to Karsten earlier today:
> 
>> Karsten:
> 
>> Speaking of which, do we have any writing standards for using the
>> wiki? Anything to point new contributors to?
> 
> Historically, to get rights on the CentOS wiki, one had to have a: 
> - have subscribed to the -docs ML - registered with CamelCase
> wikiname - optionally set up a homepage (doing so required asking
> for limited rights to do so in that sub-space on the -docs ML) -
> discuss on the -docs ML, the intended content, optionally putting a
> preview below the personal homepage in the hierarchy - one point
> being it was not interesting to simply parrot RH doco, or replicate
> content elsewhere, but rather to document deviations between
> CentOS and RHEL
> 
> as there were some deviation by design or by necessity: updater
> driven -- early days yum not RHN, artwork, license matters

http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute#head-42b3d8e26400a106851a61aebe5c2cca54dd79e5

Mea culpa, I should have remembered to search first. Also, I now
recall having read that page.

I'll follow that process, and am glad to have my edit rights
restricted theoretically or actually until I gain merit under the
current process.

I'll note this paragraph on that page:

"As said: We're really sorry that we have to do it this way but we
hope to change the process in the future so it becomes easier to
contribute to the Wiki."

I've been through these pains with wiki editing before, and spamming,
and all the problems of people posting content they shouldn't. I would
like to start working on a better process here. Can the folks with the
understanding and history help?

To put it another way, if we're waiting for someone to spend 5 to 10
hours or more a week making it easier to get wiki editors and writers,
I'd like to do that. Please do me the favor of ignoring my email
address and .sig in that request -- it is literally me asking if I
have your permission to improve things as you've indicated you want.

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\CentOS Engineering Manager
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLhpWgACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEGmvgCeKHyQCbx1UIUg5nOn+E+pMigs
n6MAn1iwYuxfVoPoGBA9qV2v7ozhYRaY
=aoRE
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Request for access to wiki

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 01/23/2014 01:17 PM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
> 
>> Historically, to get rights on the CentOS wiki, one had to have
>> a: - have subscribed to the -docs ML - registered with CamelCase
>> wikiname - optionally set up a homepage (doing so required asking
>> for limited rights to do so in that sub-space on the -docs ML) -
>> discuss on the -docs ML, the intended content, optionally putting
>> a preview below the personal homepage in the hierarchy - one
>> point being it was not interesting to simply parrot RH doco, or
>> replicate content elsewhere, but rather to document deviations
>> between CentOS and RHEL
>> 
>> as there were some deviation by design or by necessity: updater
>> driven -- early days yum not RHN, artwork, license matters
> 
> I was mostly taken aback that the new CentOS Engineering Manager 
> seemed to be completely changing the way the Wiki works. I suppose 
> Karsten simply wasn't aware of what was done in the past.

Yeah, I've been all over the place in the last few weeks, and I
neglected to introduce myself here. I'm sorry about that, it wasn't an
oversight, it was a necessity I hope you appreciate. Note that the
title in my .sig is explained in my wiki page.

http://wiki.centos.org/KarstenWade Where it comes to centos-docs I'm
just a newbie too.

However, I'm a newbie with a ton of experience working documentation
for two Linux distros (Fedora and RHEL), I've got opinions on things,
and I'm sharing those opinions here. I'll try really hard not to come
across as a know-it-all ... I'm used to be in a directive position
around documentation, I'll try to remember I'm the new guy here.
People working in centos-docs already have the history and the merit
to guide the work of people like me. I'm just trying to figure out how
it is all supposed to work, and pointing at existing examples,
experience, and expertise.

That said, I was kindly given access to write to the wiki by Jim
Perrin as a way to expedite some work a few weeks ago ... and I knew I
was skipping whatever process is normally conducted here ... for that
I apologize. I knew it was wrong as I was doing it, but it happened by
necessity literally 15 minutes before I was able to come to this list
and do it the right way. If you know my work record in free/open
source software communities, it's not as one who tries to work around
meritocratic processes. I'll make up for this immediately[1] by
writing a new email to this list as Russ has outlined above. I'll also
resist making any changes to the wiki until I have a chance to better
understand how things work around here. (Which goes back to my
questions that started things on this list, how does it work to get
wiki edit access, what are the norms there, etc. I definitely am not
going to try importing how-to-do-stuff from my other experience
without consensus from this group.)

- - Karsten

[1] Immediate as in, when I'm done with the hour bike ride I have to
make. :)
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\CentOS Engineering Manager
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLho9oACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEH6wACgljev/sNPOAT+VIAQTiaQwwVj
GFMAoLQ5m/oixawjTIHLxl3jAJWJh1pD
=ZMLI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Request for access to wiki

[Karsten Wade]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 01/23/2014 10:35 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I'd like to request access to the CentOS wiki for the purpose of 
> adding CloudStack-related CentOS documentation.
> 
> username: DavidNalley
> 
> Thanks,

This all fits in to the overall Documentation SIG discussion.

The wiki is one of the Docs SIG committer locations - it's where a
writer gets to contribute directly.

However, the other SIGs need to write to the wiki as well.

How about if we consider one of our criteria for giving wiki access to
be, "Is a committer in another SIG?"

I'd also think "is a contributor in another SIG" to possibly be good
enough, too. A contributor is someone who is doing work that is being
checked and approved by a committer. I would think the barrier to
being able to write to the wiki should be lower than for code. But we
do want to have standards.

Speaking of which, do we have any writing standards for using the
wiki? Anything to point new contributors to?

Such as:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Editing

Cheers - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\CentOS Engineering Manager
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLhZYoACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFEmwCfWyQGlXl7Vii7xlGNO7Trgq1y
bC0AoIpliSscKIlWuHjIhxBNcOhQFMSg
=35dn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs