Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I would like to propose the creation of such a virtual host so that all apache homepages will be hosted at http://community.apache.org/~name That page should be hosted on your public_html directory on your cvs.apache.org account (all committers have one, unlike www.apache.org where only a few do) A very small adjustment to the proposal: make community.apache.org/~name redirect to ~name/public_html/community or some such. This makes it completely opt-in. Those that don't want to participate, are not affected. - Sam Ruby
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 December 2002 16:34 Yeah.. I'm confused...what does ANY of the issues brought up have to do with creating the dns entry? It seems some folks are voting/debating the home directories themselves. Those are already there and I assume that decision was already made. I suppose you could propose they be shut down, but I DON'T see what creating the DNS entry has to do with that... But I'm kinda dull, so maybe if someone explains it, I'll get it. Right now the homepages aren't linked to from anywhere and certainly not promoted. Creating the dns entry will seem like promoting the use of the homepages. people.apache.org or community.apache.org will imply that such a domain entails all the people of the ASF or the entire community of the ASF. This simply can never be true since not everyone has time to create and maintain a 'community' area in his homepage area. Some of us barely have spare time and are likely to contribute to their projects rather than maintain their 'community' area. So, in the end, only the people with lots of time on their hands, or simply the most vocal ones, will (likely) be perceived (by visitors of community.apache.org) to _be_ the ASF, instead of a few faces within the ASF. I'm moving my -0 to a -1 on this basis. It would be something else if community.apache.org were only accessible by committers... Sander
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 December 2002 18:56 Sander Striker wrote: Right now the homepages aren't linked to from anywhere and certainly not promoted. url:http://cvs.apache.org/~coar/people.html, updated nightly, and certainly transformable into a more 'official' process. Should've seen that one comming. However, you have to know what to look for to find ~coar/people.html, on icarus nonetheless. It isn't likely this is a known url to the general public besides our committers. Correct? Sander
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: If Ken puts a little more description on the page, the keywords should get picked up by google. My blog seems to be well regarded by google. i'd rather address the issue of those people who use their directories for non-about-me stuff first.. there. anyone who *doesn't* want their cvs.apache.org/~name/ directory listed can simply create an empty ~/public_html/.nopublish file, and the script won't include them. as for beefing up the page.. i might do that, but publishing it anywhere generally visible should wait until the people being listed on it have consented. considering that.. making this an opt-in by checking for a .publish file might be a better approach. that way, anyone who wants to be listed has to take an explicit step to make it happen, rather than being listed without necessarily even knowing about it. if this becomes the basis of a genuinely public page, something along those lines will be a requirement. as long as it's private, though, i don't mind keeping it opt-out rather than opt-in.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
* Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
considering that.. making this an opt-in by checking for a .publish file
might be a better approach. that way, anyone who wants to be listed
has to take an explicit step to make it happen, rather than being listed
without necessarily even knowing about it.
yep. But I don't understand the general problem. What about a simple
VirtualHost *
ServerName community.apache.org
Userdir community
# or similar
/VirtualHost
instead of the weird dot files, subdirs of public_html, redirects etc?!
nd
--
my @japh = (sub{q~Just~},sub{q~Another~},sub{q~Perl~},sub{q~Hacker~});
my $japh = q[sub japh { }]; print join #
[ $japh =~ /{(.)}/] - [0] = map $_ - () #André Malo #
= @japh;# http://www.perlig.de/ #
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 December 2002 19:43 Sander Striker wrote: url:http://cvs.apache.org/~coar/people.html, updated nightly, and certainly transformable into a more 'official' process. Should've seen that one comming. However, you have to know what to look for to find ~coar/people.html, on icarus nonetheless. It isn't likely this is a known url to the general public besides our committers. Correct? exactly my point about making it more official. Which is exactly the point I'm opposing. at the moment it's private and need-to-know and that way by intention. Exactly. nits and twits and bags on the side: it would be a simple matter to alter the script that collects this to account for those who use their public_html directories for something other than 'about me' stuff. anything from looking for a ~/publis_html/.nopublish file, or reading a similar file to find out where the publishable stuff is.. computers are our servants. mostly. It's not that I don't want my page up there, I either want none or all committers to be on there, all equally represented. Otherwise people are going to think exactly what Andy wrote as (the first part of) a suggested page description: These are the homepages and voices of the Apache Community. These pages represent the committers and members of the Apache Software Foundation. Which is simply not the case if not all committers and members are represented on there. Sander
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Sunday, December 1, 2002 1:53 PM -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ick to what? its existence, or the format? :-) Its existence and the fact that Andy is on a campaign to get Google to pick up on it. -- justin
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are the homepages and voices of the Apache Community. These pages represent the committers and members of the Apache Software Foundation. Which is simply not the case if not all committers and members are represent ed on there. Lets find a nit and pick it. These are the homepages and voices of the Apache Community. These pages represent the committers and members of the Apache Software - Foundation. + Foundation whom choose to express themselves here. I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de facto representation of the face of the Apache community. FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this. -Fitz
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sander Striker wrote: Which is simply not the case if not all committers and members are represented on there. Here is an effort that I made last year http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/ Here is much move visually appealing and more maintained version: http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html Would starting with Jim's effort address your objections? Suppose I took the initiative to merge Jim and Ken's work, and come up with a page that looks exactly like Jim's but converted their CVS id into a hypertext link for individuals that chose to opt-in? The ASF has supportted .forward files for e-mail for quite some time. Would the mere act of putting a one line .forward file into your ~/public_html directory with your favorite URL be OK? - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Ben Hyde wrote: On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:04 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ben Hyde wrote: 'community.apache.org' web site. -1 Uh, thanks Ben. That helped a lot understanding the reasons behind your negative vote. My prior post regarding this enthusiasm follows... Ok, cool. See my comments below. Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list community@apache.org Received: (qmail 12720 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2002 13:13:49 - Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (204.127.198.39) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 2002 13:13:49 - Received: from pobox.com (h00055da7108f.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.30.192.113]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id 20021115131348053005tddbe; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:13:48 + Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:14:24 -0500 Subject: Re: @apache web pages Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546) From: Ben Hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: community@apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N It would be fun to have an Apache community aggregate of web logs, but I have trouble seeing how it serves the foundation's mission. Sorry to be a wet blanket... I'm concerned that if we create people.apache.org we create another inside/outsider boundary. I've got a handful of other concerns about this, but that's my primary one. I hear your concerns but today there is no easy way to find out some context about the person that I'm talking to on this list. My personal experience shows that promoting personal context helps creating more friendly communities. The real-life events are a way to promote personal context, but these events will not scale with the amount of people the ASF currently has. Thus a need to find a more decentralized solution. Some other ones... I'd rather not co-mingles the Apache brand with the personal web face of individuals in various subparts of the community. Our mission. Creating great software. Puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams. Releasing that widely under a license that is both open. Crafting an effective open license. One that doesn't entrap folks. This proposal is exactly about 'puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams'. The ASF is currently fragmented. Allow me to say balkanized. I see this as a problem. I want to 'puzzle out' how to solve this problem and I think that giving more personal context will help out. This is my personal experience. You might disagree. But try to remember if knowing apache group members in person helped the creation of the httpd community. Sure I'd love to organize gettogethers every week, but we don't have the resources for that. Having homepages for ASF-related stuff might not be as good as meeting people in real life, but it's much better than having just a dry name to confront to. I have to do a lot of A supports B supports C supports D before I get to the conclusion that D, building out a mess of committer web pages, supports A, the mission of the foundation. Hope the above explains my intentions. Bringing people closer together is for sure part of the mission of the foundation. I'm concerned that a few highly vocal members might generate the impression that the foundation is taking positions that it's not. Consider Sam's web log with where he's been poking at RSS - that's not a ASF position. Consider my web log with it's rants on the wealth distribution - that's not an ASF position. I *am* *NOT* proposing to turn apache web pages into weblogs. Weblogs are personal things, I totally and completely agree with you that weblogs should *NOT* be part of those homepages. I just want to be able to associate a name with a person. some bio information, his interests around the ASF and whatever else the person wants me to know about his ASF involvement. my proposal is *NOT*: - about weblogs - about moving all personal info inside the ASF web zone - about forcing people to do anything, but empowering those who want to have their personal info available in a coherent manner The easiest way to avoid a star stage is not to build the stage. Fair, but that is not my intention. Hope my explaination change the picture somehow. -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sam Ruby wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I would like to propose the creation of such a virtual host so that all apache homepages will be hosted at http://community.apache.org/~name That page should be hosted on your public_html directory on your cvs.apache.org account (all committers have one, unlike www.apache.org where only a few do) A very small adjustment to the proposal: make community.apache.org/~name redirect to ~name/public_html/community or some such. This makes it completely opt-in. Those that don't want to participate, are not affected. Good idea. I like it. -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sander Striker wrote: From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 December 2002 16:34 Yeah.. I'm confused...what does ANY of the issues brought up have to do with creating the dns entry? It seems some folks are voting/debating the home directories themselves. Those are already there and I assume that decision was already made. I suppose you could propose they be shut down, but I DON'T see what creating the DNS entry has to do with that... But I'm kinda dull, so maybe if someone explains it, I'll get it. Right now the homepages aren't linked to from anywhere and certainly not promoted. Creating the dns entry will seem like promoting the use of the homepages. Yes, that's exactly the intention. people.apache.org or community.apache.org will imply that such a domain entails all the people of the ASF or the entire community of the ASF. It's damn easy to create a list of all committers and provide links only for those who happen to have their ASF homepage available. That solves 'in/out' problems. This simply can never be true since not everyone has time to create and maintain a 'community' area in his homepage area. It's up to you to partecipate in this, but I don't see why the fact that you don't have time should limit others in their ability to be more community friendly. Some of us barely have spare time and are likely to contribute to their projects rather than maintain their 'community' area. Fair, then don't do so. So, in the end, only the people with lots of time on their hands, or simply the most vocal ones, will (likely) be perceived (by visitors of community.apache.org) to _be_ the ASF, instead of a few faces within the ASF. pfff, if I lack the time to partecipate in a mail list discussion should I propose to shut the mail list off until I have enough time? I'm moving my -0 to a -1 on this basis. It would be something else if community.apache.org were only accessible by committers... Sander: since the ASF was created, this page http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html contains the list of all members and not all of them have the time/will/energy/whatever to maintain an ASF-related homepage (I'm one of them, BTW). Nobody ever said that those linked ones receive more attention than the others. I hope you are not implying this. I agree with you that ASF 'visibility' should not be a function of whether or not you have a homepage setup. So, just like you don't stop discussions if you don't have time, but you still receive messages, I would suggest that we list *all* committers, but then we link only those who do have an ASF-related homepage setup. Does that remove your fears? -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
//www.apache.org/foundation/members.html I'd be more comfortable if the individual committer pages were hosted outside the apache.org domain, as is the case with this example. - ben
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 04:28 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna. huh? (and yes I know what the congress of vienna was). It keeps coming back down to this: open (we sit on the left) closed (you sit on the right) and it really keeps being that simple. Exactly how does this have anything what so ever to do with open vs. closed?
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Ben Hyde wrote: //www.apache.org/foundation/members.html I'd be more comfortable if the individual committer pages were hosted outside the apache.org domain, as is the case with this example. - ben With a few notable exceptions, for example: http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:13:26PM -0600, B. W. Fitzpatrick wrote: snip I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de facto representation of the face of the Apache community. Indeed - all projects within Apache represent Apache, regardless of the disclaimer and hand-waving you tack onto it. As lawyers often say, you can't unring a bell - once someone looks at a webpage, that will be part of that person's impression of Apache. FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this. Amen. If I want to get to know someone, I'll do it the old-fashioned way - I'll strike up a conversation, regardless of the means (e-mail, irc, what-have-you). If one lacks the conversational skills to do this - well, that's a personal problem. Apache is about two things, as I see it: primarily, software and, as a consequence of that software, people. Apache would not exist without software; however, software does not exist without people. We (the people) gather together within the construct of the ASF to *write software*. Getting to know the actors within the process is nice, and necessary to maintain the smooth operation of the process. I say, if people want to put up webpages to toot their horn about what they're interested in, or to ensure that others can have ready conversation topics when ambushing the person, or for self-aggrandizement, fine. But Apache is not the place for it. (And, if it is not clear by now, I'm -1 on the whole shmooze.) Victor -- Victor J. Orlikowski | The Wall is Down, But the Threat Remains! == [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Ben Hyde wrote: On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 04:28 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna. huh? (and yes I know what the congress of vienna was). conservatives sat on the left and the more liberal sat on the left (hence where the terms right and left became associated with conservative versus liberal). The two sides to every issue as of late keep bringing this to mind and the very issue pointed to below. It keeps coming back down to this: open (we sit on the left) closed (you sit on the right) and it really keeps being that simple. Exactly how does this have anything what so ever to do with open vs. closed? Whether one wants the community closely associated with the people in it, and make those people more accessible to the world at large. It has everything to do with open versus closed. It has everything to do with whether this looks like a closed geek society (the star chamber) or an open community. And the you shouldn't because I'm too busy too and your visibility detracts from mine is a very different viewpoint on how a community should operate (never been a fan of zero sum ecnomics anyhow) -Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sam Ruby wrote: Ben Hyde wrote: //www.apache.org/foundation/members.html I'd be more comfortable if the individual committer pages were hosted outside the apache.org domain, as is the case with this example. - ben With a few notable exceptions, for example: http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ or http://www.apache.org/~stefano/ -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: Apache is about two things, as I see it: primarily, software and, as a consequence of that software, people. I see it exactly the other way around. Great communities always create great software. The opposite is not always true (see sourceforge). -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
My opinions exactly match Ken's below. - Sam Ruby Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: it looks like several issues are getting conflated again. 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? 3. should there be a list of them? 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? here's my personal take on these questions: 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? +1 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? -0 (+1 if it's no more than 'don't put anything here that might reflect poorly on the asf') 3. should there be a list of them? +1. data-driven, either through something in peoples' cvs.apache.org/~name/ directory, like the one-off '.nopublish' i mentioned earlier, or a ~/.homepage like sam (?) suggested, or whatever. 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? opt-in, of course. 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? -1. someone tries to force its opinion on me about how i may choose to express myself and describe my participation in the asf, i tell it to sod off in no uncertain terms. if someone doesn't like it, then it should a) not do it, and b) not look at others. but don't obstruct people who think the idea has value, particularly since it won't affect *you* in any way. (generic 'you' there, not anyone in mind at all.)
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
it looks like several issues are getting conflated again. sarcasm ONBig suprise./sarcasm off 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? 3. should there be a list of them? 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? here's my personal take on these questions: 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? +1 They've traditionally been used for patches and so with seemed like a good use. For personal information I'm inclined to disagree that it's a valid or even desirable use. 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? -0 (+1 if it's no more than 'don't put anything here that might reflect poorly on the asf') And who gets to decide? Jesus - not another council. I mean what would we call it? In the vain of this entire community stuff we'd need to setup a mailing list straight away to discuss the name alone - and then the problems of who shoudl be told... Could take a long time. Ken - did you think that last bit through to it's logical conslusion? 3. should there be a list of them? +1. data-driven, either through something in peoples' cvs.apache.org/~name/ directory, like the one-off '.nopublish' i mentioned earlier, or a ~/.homepage like sam (?) suggested, or whatever. 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? opt-in, of course. 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? -1. someone tries to force its opinion on me about how i may choose to express myself and describe my participation in the asf, i tell it to sod off in no uncertain terms. if someone doesn't like it, then it should a) not do it, and b) not look at others. but don't obstruct people who think the idea has value, particularly since it won't affect *you* in any way. (generic 'you' there, not anyone in mind at all.) Rhetorical questions : Have we all gone mad? Does anyone feel this sort of lengthy discussion is really a good use of their time? Does it help to foster a greater feeling of community (the definition of which could be another topic that would spawn a lot of worthless messages no doubt)? david
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sam Ruby wrote: My opinions exactly match Ken's below. Same here. - Sam Ruby Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: it looks like several issues are getting conflated again. 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? 3. should there be a list of them? 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? here's my personal take on these questions: 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? +1 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? -0 (+1 if it's no more than 'don't put anything here that might reflect poorly on the asf') 3. should there be a list of them? +1. data-driven, either through something in peoples' cvs.apache.org/~name/ directory, like the one-off '.nopublish' i mentioned earlier, or a ~/.homepage like sam (?) suggested, or whatever. 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? opt-in, of course. 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? -1. someone tries to force its opinion on me about how i may choose to express myself and describe my participation in the asf, i tell it to sod off in no uncertain terms. if someone doesn't like it, then it should a) not do it, and b) not look at others. but don't obstruct people who think the idea has value, particularly since it won't affect *you* in any way. (generic 'you' there, not anyone in mind at all.) expecially this! -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: Apache is about two things, as I see it: primarily, software and, as a consequence of that software, people. I see it exactly the other way around. Great communities always create great software. The opposite is not always true (see sourceforge). +1
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Sunday, December 1, 2002 6:01 PM -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? -1. someone tries to force its opinion on me about how i may choose to express myself and describe my participation in the asf, i tell it to sod off in no uncertain terms. if someone doesn't like it, then it should a) not do it, and b) not look at others. but don't obstruct people who think the idea has value, particularly since it won't affect *you* in any way. (generic 'you' there, not anyone in mind at all.) I'm afraid of it reflecting poorly upon the ASF. Not matter how hard you try to say that the content isn't representative of the ASF as a whole, as long as the content is hosted on our site/domain, it will be deemed as such. Imagine the day when one of our committers rants about Java on their community.apache.org/~name page and it is posted to /. and Sun gets its panties in a knot due to the bad publicity. If a member or committer does this in a non-ASF forum, fine. But, giving people a platform from which to imply association with the ASF isn't helpful to the foundation or its mission. Reacting passively to these situations isn't going to help. Once the story would be posted on /., we're all in hot water. I believe the best course of action is not to encourage this behavior. -- justin
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: it looks like several issues are getting conflated again. 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? 3. should there be a list of them? 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? here's my personal take on these questions: 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? +1 You must change the term here. Because they already have this. So its should we take it away... to that I vote -1. 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? -0 (+1 if it's no more than 'don't put anything here that might reflect poorly on the asf') -1 (-1 in that case because it adds the who decides) 3. should there be a list of them? +1. data-driven, either through something in peoples' cvs.apache.org/~name/ directory, like the one-off '.nopublish' i mentioned earlier, or a ~/.homepage like sam (?) suggested, or whatever. +1 agreed. 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? opt-in, of course. well actually technically .nopublish is opt out, but +1 either way. 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)? -1. someone tries to force its opinion on me about how i may choose to express myself and describe my participation in the asf, i tell it to sod off in no uncertain terms. if someone doesn't like it, then it should a) not do it, and b) not look at others. but don't obstruct people who think the idea has value, particularly since it won't affect *you* in any way. (generic 'you' there, not anyone in mind at all.) -1 agreed! No truer thing has been said in recent times! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
David Reid wrote: file://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html I'd be more comfortable if the individual committer pages were hosted outside the apache.org domain, as is the case with this example. - ben With a few notable exceptions, for example: http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ http://www.apache.org/~stefano/ Oh, are we keeping score? If we are I'll have to point out that somebody is hosting .doc files on his pages at apache.org. That's worth some points isn't it? Humor aside what point are you folks making? I've given up trying to figure that out as well... I was *NOT* trying to be funny. As I said at the Town Hall meeting of the ApacheCon... I am a committer, a PMC chair, a member, and a director... and for none of these roles does there seem to be a rulebook. Now here we have Ben Hyde saying that he is concerned what impact there would be on the ASF if committers were allowed to have personal pages hosted by the ASF. Meanwhile, the then chair of the ASF has long since hosted his favorite board games, sports, and quotes on www.apache.org. Is that clear enough? If not, the point I was really trying to make was best expressed by Ken: someone tries to force its opinion on me about how i may choose to express myself and describe my participation in the asf, i tell it to sod off in no uncertain terms. if someone doesn't like it, then it should a) not do it, and b) not look at others. but don't obstruct people who think the idea has value, particularly since it won't affect *you* in any way. (generic 'you' there, not anyone in mind at all. The ASF I wish to be a part of is one and/or create is one that tolerates differences in points of view or approach to solving problems. - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Ben Hyde wrote: 'community.apache.org' web site. -1 Uh, thanks Ben. That helped a lot understanding the reasons behind your negative vote. Several things were put on the table: 1) potential non-asf-ralated material 2) content imposition 3) fact - vote 4) -1 without reason 5) automatic redirection breaks existing content 6) people.apache.org I'll reply to all of these in this message for brevity: 1) we already have committers homepages. so either we close those down, or I don't see any reason for people starting to misbehave from this point on. my proposal is just bring coherence to something that grew out by itself. 2) my proposal contained 'suggestions' and there would be no way for anybody to force somebody to adhere to some standard. I perfectly know that all of us are lazy butts and I know all of us become overly defensive when things are 'imposed'. But there is no imposition on a suggestion. 3) read how the title starts. proposal means let's start a discussion and place your vote means tell me what you think, honest. It might sound a little arrogant to some, but I much rather prefer to cut the crap and get things done. Since this proposal will impact all committers, I wanted to hear what everybody here perceived it and so I started a proposal. Again, I don't see the need to become defensive. 4) as a rule on the development communities where I happen to hang around, a -1 without a reason can be ignored without a reason. Being this a much wider community, I much rather ask the *reason* why I negative vote has been placed without a reason. Ben, your turn. 5) automatic redirection was proposed a way to unify URI spaces of the current homepages. Since no content will be imposed (everybody can have whatever they want on their pages), I don't see why this should be a problem 6) since this list is the mail list representation of that web site, I thought that community.apache.org was a better name since it matches the mail list one. Your turn, people. -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
