Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org - issues redux
+1, very, very well said... After having read all the different concerns and opinions in the previous posts, I completely agree to every single point of your mail and I hope this will bring us back on the right trackthank you, Mr. Curcuru ;-) cheers, erik > Von: Shane Curcuru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Antworten an: community@apache.org > Datum: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 18:42:50 -0800 (PST) > An: community@apache.org > Betreff: Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org - issues redux > > OK, I'm trying vainly to keep up with community, and while there isn't > necessarily a clear consensus, there are a lot of good ideas (and it > seems quite polite disagreement). > > Sorry I don't have the brainwidth right now for concrete, specific > proposals, but here are my take on some larger issues: ASF oversight; > the role of community; the technical details. > > ...
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org - issues redux
OK, I'm trying vainly to keep up with community, and while there isn't necessarily a clear consensus, there are a lot of good ideas (and it seems quite polite disagreement). Sorry I don't have the brainwidth right now for concrete, specific proposals, but here are my take on some larger issues: ASF oversight; the role of community; the technical details. ASF Oversight: Yes, this is a serious issue (as some people seem to gloss over, while some others are super-concerned here) that we do have to deal with. Immaterial of the set of various personal trust levels between all committers, the corporation itself is it's own entity that has to have some set of standards and level of oversight on it's properties (including the apache.org name). Personally, I'd like to see us be fairly open on the general matter of promoting the community of ASF committers; assume that in general committers won't muck things up, and that it's unlikely that really bad things will happen from having ~userid pages posted. As a corollary, it's obvious to me that the ASF does have some general policies on acceptable content (immaterial of if we've written them down all yet) and may well need to exercise control on content posted on our servers. Yes, that's a big hand wave - but if we basically trust committers to post 'acceptable stuff', then we also need to trust that the 'acceptable' level will be reasonably fair (at least from the corporation's point of view). Upshot? Whatever expression of individual content that's not directly related to software projects we host is only allowed under some general ASF guidelines. Break the guidelines, and we remove the content - period. (But I don't expect that to happen much). Heck, I'd be happy with community.apache.org just having a big disclaimer on it's homepage that notes these are individual pages, not directly representative of ASF positions, yadda yadda, yadda. The role of community: A number of people don't seem to want any sort of individual non-project-related stuff hosted at apache.org. But I keep thinking of what we often say is a difference between ASF projects and, say, sourceforge projects: the active and vibrant communities. If having these communities is that important (and I think it is) then we need to try to support it. Those who just don't want to participate, that's OK: but let those who do want to have closer 'feeling' of community go do the work to make it happen (just a general observation; I think we'll work out fine). Yes, mailing lists and email is one way we support that; and yes, some people don't want any more personal contact. Fine - but I think that having more ways to encourage and bring together our communities are a good idea - and webpages are a widely-know, easy to use, and very 'eat your own dogfood' way to support this. Upshot? I'd really like to see some easy-to-use framework to get at least some basic individual content - preferably with ASF project tie-ins - hosted on some sort of apache.org site. If we have a likely solution I plan to put up a bit about my projects as well. Oh, and opt-in only, obviously; basic guidelines about keep it ASF-related, etc. The Technical Details and Who Does the Work Well, yes, it all comes down to the details. But for me, I'd be happy with several of the suggestions - whatever we can get some consensus on, and can get some volunteers to organize and *document* it. Since I don't have the httpd admin experience or enough extra time to materially help on setting this up, I'll just send my thanks to those who actually set it up. (Sometimes I surprise myself with how easygoing I can be... just sometimes). Along with work in incubator, I'm glad to see we're documenting some of our guidelines and making them much more obvious to find! Upshot? Well, in general I'm happy with either of these proposals or something similar: +1 to community.apache.org which gets auto-linked to everyone's ~user/public_html pages somehow. +1 to some form of project-specific lists of 'who we are' that gives committers opportunity for just a picture, paragraph, and URL Note: we need to agree on something For everyone worried about liability (legal or /.) in general - we have to either have a documented way to do something for community, or we need to turn off the default httpd sharing of ~user directories. Now that we've recognized this, let's address it. Thanks to those who've put forth such good ideas, especially those trying to crystallize ideas and focus on specific proposals. I really like RoUS's 5 points in his "it looks like several issues are getting conflated again." email. I also liked this particular quote from Sam Ruby: > 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. = - Shane __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Si
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Daniel Rall wrote: Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... Alternatively.. Let's abandon all this wishy-washy 'community' guff and focus on what matters: the code. As Coding Machines, I say each new committer be assigned a serial number by which they are addressed publicly. With luck, we can eliminate any trace of this 'individuality' that dilutes the Apache brandname. --CM029476 ROFLMAO I'd like to be #6 [1] -jAndy.NET [1] http://www.the-prisoner-6.freeserve.co.uk/
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... > Alternatively.. > > Let's abandon all this wishy-washy 'community' guff and focus on what > matters: the code. As Coding Machines, I say each new committer be > assigned a serial number by which they are addressed publicly. With > luck, we can eliminate any trace of this 'individuality' that dilutes the > Apache brandname. > > --CM029476 ROFLMAO -- Daniel Rall
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Now, I wonder: why don't we use the 'community' CVS repository for personal pages? (or create another "community-pages" repository) what do you think? In general, it seems to me that an ASF wide repository is less likely to be actively monitored, maintained, and policed than a set of community specific repositories. Personally, what I would like to see is pages like http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/who.html lead the way, and the results get aggregated up into pages like http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/committers.html . Also, putting the pages themselves in cvs also means that they must be statically rendered. While that might be OK for some, it would also exclude pages such as http://outerthought.net/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=StevenNoels . Trust me, the results can still be spidered and the results put in a form suitable for input into your http://www.apache.org/~stefano/community/ page. - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Aaron Bannert wrote: As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings. This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with should probably have the same level of oversight. Justin has a very valid point: without proper oversight people might abuse their pages without even knowing they are doing it. Unfortunately, you fail to see that some of us work on so many different projects that it will be a major PITA to scatter our bio information all over the place. It would be *much* easier to link directly to our asf-related personal page. [yeah, let's call it 'ASF personal page' rather than home page so that nobody freaks out] Now, I wonder: why don't we use the 'community' CVS repository for personal pages? (or create another "community-pages" repository) By doing so we could: 1) have proper oversight because all diffs are sent on a cvs-related mail list like all the other CVS repositories (we could send those diffs here) 2) we are future-compatible in case the apache infrastructure is able to remove the need for account on cvs.apache.org 3) it is easier for non-unix committers to setup their pages since they already have to know how to use CVS. 4) all personal information about everybody is kept in one place, so it's easy for infrastructure people to keep an eye on disk usage for those personally-related information 5) community personal pages don't conflict with existing users pages Possible objections: a) that community cvs module might become huge and I don't want to checkout the whole thing. answer: "cvs checkout community/pages/$user/" will download only your stuff. what do you think? -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 12:55 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: [long quote omitted] Please refrain from copying every line of a post in your reply. It is best to only quote what you are replying to. -aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Aaron Bannert wrote: To me it seems we are trying to solve two problems here: 1) A place to put homepages and personal content, including (but not limited to) ASF-related activities and project proposals, as well as individual interests. 2) A catalog of the people representing the ASF "community". IMO the only time #1 should be hosted on an apache.org site is if for some reason the person can not find other space to host the content. I am perfectly fine with #2, as we have already been doing so with contributor pages for the various projects (I happen to think this is more effective than a simple list of all 600 or so committers.) #1 is already there. [more comments below] On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 06:47 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: Aaron Bannert wrote: That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project" pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox. Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you think should be on and off limits? This is an excellent example of what can go right if we host people's personal homepages on apache.org. Do you believe that every other page we host will turn out the same way? Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which, to be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly could be categorized as http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ). What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus. For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . Now let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each committer to specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single hypertext link to the page of their choice. As has been pointed out, this is not materially different that what has been in place on http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time. I have no problem with this, as long as the individual pages are hosted elsewhere than the apache.org namespace. Note that I didn't say "hosted elsewhere than on the ASF infrastructure". As long as the people who own the hardware and pay the bandwidth bills don't mind*, I would have no problem with a vhost entry for, say www.friendsofapache.com or www.peopleofapache.com or even www.amiapacheornot.com (tongue-in-cheek :), as long as it doesn't imply that it is officially ASF. *I considered offering hosting space for ASF people who have no other place to put their stuff, but I don't think I have sufficient bandwidth or reliable-enough hardware... Although, I believe per-project listings of contributors with offsite links is more effective, I won't move to block a flat list of every ASF-community member. If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be enforced. Should the guidelines be different for on-site and off-site content? As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings. This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with should probably have the same level of oversight. I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but would be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus. Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals along these lines? -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
ROUS wrote: > "Noel J. Bergman" wrote: > > It occurs to me that if people want to guide the content of > > the ASF hosted "personal" page, there could be a DTD, and the > > pages could be generated from an XML file using a consistent look > ugh, ick. :-) that's pretty impersonal for a 'personal' page. > not for me, thanks. Agreed. It was intentional, and I figured that standardization would be off-putting to some. But since the "personal" seems to be the area of discontent, I thought that it was worth floating the idea of a directory with standard biographical info and a link to additional personal content elsewhere. --- Noel
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
To me it seems we are trying to solve two problems here: 1) A place to put homepages and personal content, including (but not limited to) ASF-related activities and project proposals, as well as individual interests. 2) A catalog of the people representing the ASF "community". IMO the only time #1 should be hosted on an apache.org site is if for some reason the person can not find other space to host the content. I am perfectly fine with #2, as we have already been doing so with contributor pages for the various projects (I happen to think this is more effective than a simple list of all 600 or so committers.) [more comments below] On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 06:47 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: Aaron Bannert wrote: That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project" pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox. Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you think should be on and off limits? This is an excellent example of what can go right if we host people's personal homepages on apache.org. Do you believe that every other page we host will turn out the same way? Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which, to be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly could be categorized as http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ). What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus. For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . Now let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each committer to specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single hypertext link to the page of their choice. As has been pointed out, this is not materially different that what has been in place on http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time. I have no problem with this, as long as the individual pages are hosted elsewhere than the apache.org namespace. Note that I didn't say "hosted elsewhere than on the ASF infrastructure". As long as the people who own the hardware and pay the bandwidth bills don't mind*, I would have no problem with a vhost entry for, say www.friendsofapache.com or www.peopleofapache.com or even www.amiapacheornot.com (tongue-in-cheek :), as long as it doesn't imply that it is officially ASF. *I considered offering hosting space for ASF people who have no other place to put their stuff, but I don't think I have sufficient bandwidth or reliable-enough hardware... Although, I believe per-project listings of contributors with offsite links is more effective, I won't move to block a flat list of every ASF-community member. If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be enforced. Should the guidelines be different for on-site and off-site content? As Justin pointed out, we get automatic oversight right now when someone makes a change to a project website, including the contributor listings. This works very well for code commits, so whatever we come up with should probably have the same level of oversight. I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but would be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus. Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals along these lines? -aaron
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> > As a new committer, I not only appreciate that view, I want to > > know where to find the info! :-) > keep an eye on incubator.apache.org Will do. Will there be a reference to it from http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html? --- Noel
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
"Noel J. Bergman" wrote: > > As a new committer, I not only appreciate that view, I want to > know where to find the info! :-) keep an eye on incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
"Noel J. Bergman" wrote: > > It occurs to me that if people want to guide the content of > the ASF hosted "personal" page, there could be a DTD, and the > pages could be generated from an XML file using a consistent look ugh, ick. :-) that's pretty impersonal for a 'personal' page. not for me, thanks..
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
ROUS wrote: > uniform education of (new) committers is one of the purposes of the incubator > project. documenting these things for all, including existing committers, > is as well. As a new committer, I not only appreciate that view, I want to know where to find the info! :-) --- Noel
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> Justin, if you would like to put forward a set of rules, > guidelines, and suggest an enforcement mechanism, I would be > inclined to endorse it if it would further consensus. It occurs to me that if people want to guide the content of the ASF hosted "personal" page, there could be a DTD, and the pages could be generated from an XML file using a consistent look as is done for projects. The DTD could define an optional reference to an off-site page for individual expression (personal pages, blogs, wikis, whatever). You'd opt-in by creating the XML, have guidance as to the normal content, have a standard way to refer to more personal data as desired, and it would be clear that such other data was not part of the "standard ASF material." That provides a standard opt-in mechanism, guidance on content, ought to encourage the kind of information Stefano has in mind, and provides for freedom of expression on an indirect page. Does that satisfy anyone? --- Noel
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
>Ben Hyde wrote: > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > One that it doesn't address is Ben Hyde's view that that the > > chaotic "mess", where there are committers who don't even know > > that they can create a public_html, much less feel encouraged to do so... > I recall somebody having some view along those lines, but it wasn't me. You're correct. I apologize for mis-attributing the quote. --- Noel
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sander Striker wrote: > > > I agree with Nicola Ken. We *are* talking about different things. > > Stefano proposed a short bio, picture, etc. (Although, to date I have > > not had a significant problem with people mispronouncing my name). You > > are objecting to Beanie Babies. If it will help further consensus, I > > will object to Beanie Babies too. > > Some people don't want these rules imposed. Ken for one didn't want this > (correct me if I'm wrong Ken). reasonable guidelines, permitting reasonable latitude, are fine. stringently anal rules aren't. all imho.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sander Striker wrote: > > My point is that quite a number of people won't have the time > (or inclination) to do so. And because they don't, they aren't > listed*. : > Currently the list (auto created) on Kens page holds about > 40 committers. How many committers do we have in total? > Somewhere between 550 and 600. 40 isn't exactly an accurate > representation of our community, is it? so the issue is painting the list as being representative, then? fine; we just mark it as 'asf people who have bothered to list pages here.' > I'm not. I'm just saying that on the members page _all_ members > are listed. what's the relevance? the members page says 'these are the members'. i don't recall seeing anyone say the list of ~name pages was to be labeled 'these are the asf committers'. quite otherwise, in fact; i've seen suggestions that it be clearly marked as incomplete and opt-in.
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 02 December 2002 16:56 > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > --On Monday, December 2, 2002 8:39 AM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with > >> blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some > >> pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much > >> more. > > > > Of course we are. We're saying that anyone can post whatever they want > > on their apache.org site. That's what I'm against. I don't want people > > posting their honeymoon pictures or their Beanie Babies collection. > > But, as soon as we say, 'you can post whatever you want,' that's what is > > going to happen. Saying otherwise is foolish. > > I agree with Nicola Ken. We *are* talking about different things. > Stefano proposed a short bio, picture, etc. (Although, to date I have > not had a significant problem with people mispronouncing my name). You > are objecting to Beanie Babies. If it will help further consensus, I > will object to Beanie Babies too. Some people don't want these rules imposed. Ken for one didn't want this (correct me if I'm wrong Ken). Sander
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 December 2002 22:49 >> Sander Striker wrote: >> Right now the homepages aren't linked to from anywhere and certainly >> not promoted. Creating the dns entry will seem like promoting the use >> of the homepages. > > Yes, that's exactly the intention. > >> "people".apache.org or "community".apache.org will imply that such a domain >> entails all the people of the ASF or the entire community of the ASF. > > It's damn easy to create a list of all committers and provide links only > for those who happen to have their ASF homepage available. That solves > 'in/out' problems. > >> This simply can never be true since not everyone has time to create and >> maintain >> a 'community' area in his homepage area. > > It's up to you to partecipate in this, but I don't see why the fact that > you don't have time should limit others in their ability to be more > community friendly. I'm not saying that. >> Some of us barely have spare time >> and are likely to contribute to their projects rather than maintain their >> 'community' area. > > Fair, then don't do so. My point is that quite a number of people won't have the time (or inclination) to do so. And because they don't, they aren't listed*. >> So, in the end, only the people with lots of time on >> their hands, or simply the most vocal ones, will (likely) be perceived (by >> visitors of community.apache.org) to _be_ the ASF, instead of a few faces >> within the ASF. > > pfff, if I lack the time to partecipate in a mail list discussion should > I propose to shut the mail list off until I have enough time? Bah, I'm quite sure you got my point. Currently the list (auto created) on Kens page holds about 40 committers. How many committers do we have in total? Somewhere between 550 and 600. 40 isn't exactly an accurate representation of our community, is it? >> I'm moving my -0 to a -1 on this basis. It would be something else if >> community.apache.org were only accessible by committers... > > Sander: since the ASF was created, this page > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html > > contains the list of all members and not all of them have the > time/will/energy/whatever to maintain an ASF-related homepage (I'm one > of them, BTW). > > Nobody ever said that those linked ones receive more attention than the > others. I hope you are not implying this. I'm not. I'm just saying that on the members page _all_ members are listed. > I agree with you that ASF 'visibility' should not be a function of > whether or not you have a homepage setup. Exactly. > So, just like you don't stop discussions if you don't have time, but you > still receive messages, I would suggest that we list *all* committers, > but then we link only those who do have an ASF-related homepage setup. > > Does that remove your fears? Some of them. I feel others have voiced things in line with my views so I'm not going to duplicate that. Sander *) This is addressed in the last paragraph of this mail and in my reply to Sam.
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 December 2002 22:23 > Sander Striker wrote: >> Which is simply not the case if not all committers and members are >> represented >> on there. > > Here is an effort that I made last year http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/ > > Here is much move visually appealing and more maintained version: > http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html > > Would starting with Jim's effort address your objections? Suppose I > took the initiative to merge Jim and Ken's work, and come up with a page > that looks exactly like Jim's but converted their CVS id into a > hypertext link for individuals that chose to opt-in? That would be fair, yes. > The ASF has supportted .forward files for e-mail for quite some time. And I'm glad for it. The amount of spam and unsubscription requests received after posting to the announce@ list just isn't funny... This at least allows me to filter on address ;). > Would the mere act of putting a one line .forward file into your > ~/public_html directory with your favorite URL be OK? I don't see why not. You do imply picking up this .forward file (or .fav_url or whatever) and putting that on a merged jim/coar page right? Sander
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Monday, December 2, 2002 10:56 AM -0500 Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Justin, if you would like to put forward a set of rules, guidelines, and suggest an enforcement mechanism, I would be inclined to endorse it if it would further consensus. As I have said before, what I would prefer is more projects using the 'contributors' page that lists all contributors with a short blurb about them - much along the lines of what Stefano originally suggested. It'd be on the project pages, not on individual person's pages (that ensures oversight). Their entry can then link to the non-ASF site of their choice. My canonical example is: http://httpd.apache.org/contributors/ Although Jakarta has one of their own: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html My issue with the Jakarta page is that it doesn't have a picture (rather, room for a picture) and not everyone has their favorite link associated with it. For a page so large, the index at the top with everyone's name on it would be goodness, I think. I also have a hunch that each Jakarta sub-project should have a contributors page rather than a maintaining a global Jakarta one. That page is just too big. What I would think would also be agreeable is that we have a foundation-wide page that links to each project's contributors page. I'd be loathe to see duplication though. Hence, just link to each project's page. However, I could see a case where someone on community@ doesn't know what projects I'm on and hence doesn't know where to look for my info. That may make the case for polishing up Jim's page that lists all committers and their projects and putting it somewhere more 'official.' Perhaps, we could also follow a similar pattern as we do for members with committers. Jim's page could be tweaked to have a simple 'name, organization' with preferred links for both. That'd be it. Nothing more (every committer would be arranged alphabetically with no mention of what PMCs, ASF membership, etc, etc.). Yet, your 'name' link should do a job of describing who you are. If your preferred website doesn't describe you, then I wouldn't complain that no one knows who you are. =) There is such a directory for members. And I'm pleased to report that I have yet to come across a Beanie Baby in any of the links I have visited. The members directory just has their name and organization (perhaps URLs for both). But, all those links are external. =) I don't care if you sell Beanie Babies or have pictures of your kids on your site. -- justin
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Monday, December 2, 2002 8:39 AM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much more. Of course we are. We're saying that anyone can post whatever they want on their apache.org site. That's what I'm against. I don't want people posting their honeymoon pictures or their Beanie Babies collection. But, as soon as we say, 'you can post whatever you want,' that's what is going to happen. Saying otherwise is foolish. I agree with Nicola Ken. We *are* talking about different things. Stefano proposed a short bio, picture, etc. (Although, to date I have not had a significant problem with people mispronouncing my name). You are objecting to Beanie Babies. If it will help further consensus, I will object to Beanie Babies too. Unfortunately, Roy's site is sort of an example of what I don't want to see. However, what I believe Sam hasn't realized is that Roy *just* moved his site there from the UCI servers while he looks for a new home for his web site. (Roy will correct me if I'm wrong.) I trust Roy not to post anything inappropriate, so I'm not going to complain because I believe it's temporary. Yet, not every committer has earned my trust in the way Roy has. I trust Roy too, and find absolutely nothing offensive or counter to the goals of the ASF in his page. To the contrary, I believe that it is helpful for people to get to know their board members, the ASF membership in general, and peers. Is it a complete solution? Certainly not. But it is a start. Furthermore, I tend to start out from a position of trust. This certainly can benefit from being coupled with a little bit of education. Perhaps the incubator could help educate people that these pages are a community resource and that people should be mindful of putting content out there that might damage the ASF. Justin, if you would like to put forward a set of rules, guidelines, and suggest an enforcement mechanism, I would be inclined to endorse it if it would further consensus. And, what Andy is missing is that with a DNS alias, there would now be an implicit approval of these sites. Furthermore, there would be a directory of people who have sites publically linked. Right now, there is no such approval or directory. There is such a directory for members. And I'm pleased to report that I have yet to come across a Beanie Baby in any of the links I have visited. Now there is a directory for committers (several, actually). Let's combine the best from each, adding guidelines where necessary, and move forward. - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --On Monday, December 2, 2002 8:39 AM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with > > blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some > > pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much > > more. > > Of course we are. We're saying that anyone can post whatever they > want on their apache.org site. That's what I'm against. I don't > want people posting their honeymoon pictures or their Beanie Babies > collection. But, as soon as we say, 'you can post whatever you > want,' that's what is going to happen. Saying otherwise is foolish. Color me foolish then. I just can't wait to have my very own dot on Stephano's cool SVG image. > Unfortunately, Roy's site is sort of an example of what I don't want > to see. However, what I believe Sam hasn't realized is that Roy > *just* moved his site there from the UCI servers while he looks for a > new home for his web site. (Roy will correct me if I'm wrong.) I > trust Roy not to post anything inappropriate, so I'm not going to > complain because I believe it's temporary. Yet, not every committer > has earned my trust in the way Roy has. If your description is accurate, I see Roy's behavior here as completely consistent with Jon's placement of an idiot.html url within the Jakarta community documents. Is this the Apache Way? -- Joe Schaefer
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Monday, December 2, 2002 8:39 AM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much more. Of course we are. We're saying that anyone can post whatever they want on their apache.org site. That's what I'm against. I don't want people posting their honeymoon pictures or their Beanie Babies collection. But, as soon as we say, 'you can post whatever you want,' that's what is going to happen. Saying otherwise is foolish. Unfortunately, Roy's site is sort of an example of what I don't want to see. However, what I believe Sam hasn't realized is that Roy *just* moved his site there from the UCI servers while he looks for a new home for his web site. (Roy will correct me if I'm wrong.) I trust Roy not to post anything inappropriate, so I'm not going to complain because I believe it's temporary. Yet, not every committer has earned my trust in the way Roy has. And, what Andy is missing is that with a DNS alias, there would now be an implicit approval of these sites. Furthermore, there would be a directory of people who have sites publically linked. Right now, there is no such approval or directory. There are good uses and bad uses, but the bad use is going to be promoted as soon as we create a community.apache.org vhost. Every time a committer comes in the communities I'm in, he describes himself to the list. I just put that up on my page. What's the problem? Not everyone who joins a list will be a committer! You're going to be creating a 'star stage' if everyone trades URLs and yours happens to be hosted on the apache.org site while the newbies won't have that benefit. What makes you different? Nothing should. -- justin
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Aaron Bannert wrote: That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project" pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. First, I don't recall Stefano proposing an organized soapbox. Aaron, can you take a moment and take a peek at http://www.apache.org/~fielding/ and indicate specifically what you think should be on and off limits? Overall, I would like to see this discussion move away from http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm arguments (which, to be fair was in response to an argument which at best contained http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.htm, and quite possibly could be categorized as http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm ). What I would like to see this discussion move towards is concrete and specific proposals and objections. And towards building consensus. For starters, we have http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . Now let's entertain the notion of augmenting this allowing each committer to specify (via a completely opt-in basis) with a single hypertext link to the page of their choice. As has been pointed out, this is not materially different that what has been in place on http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html for quite some time. If acceptable, then lets explore what guidelines we need to place (if any) on the content of pages and how such guidelines are to be enforced. Should the guidelines be different for on-site and off-site content? I personally would advocate very minimal guidelines, if any, but would be willing to compromise if that would increase consensus. Is there anyone out there willing to contribute specific proposals along these lines? - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
May I continue to point out that we are WAY off topic. The issue at hand is the creation of a DNS alias. The homepage thing is already in place. Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Yet, a personal web site is just that - personal. It's purposely not part of the ASF community. There's no oversight. Therefore, I question what benefit can be gained by endorsing personal web sites hosted on the ASF infrastructure. -- justin I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much more. Every time a committer comes in the communities I'm in, he describes himself to the list. I just put that up on my page. What's the problem? If you are afraid of people trying to use Apache as a showcase for themselves, personal homepages are not the place to look at. If people are mature enough to keep a decent homepage at apache, then I'm seriously concerned about them having acess to Apache resources at all. Find me a personal page that has that problem and I'll agree with you. P.S. There are about 590 people with commit right now!
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project" pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. No one has proposed those be removed. I'm interested in bringing others closer to the community whom currently do regard it as some kind of "star chamber". .(I'd say thats the prevalent view) I notice a lot of folks share these views, but I can tell there is a whole other side whom hold the exact opposite opinion. If having a homepage on apache.org becomes one of the valued privileges one gets after being accepted into the ASF, then we will only be replacing the star chamber with an ivory tower (with a megaphone). All committers have access to create a "homepage" already. As others have said earlier in this discussion, this does not further the goals of the ASF. I disagree. Woah there! The word "open" is an extremely loaded word in real-life to begin with. You can't possibly address a group of people who write "open source software" and divide this discussion on these lines. By the mere fact that anyone who is interested in software development within the ASF may join this mailing list and /openly/ discuss this and other topics means that we are all part of an open forum. I do not think it is fair to shun everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on the creation of a community.apache.org website as "closed". This is my opinion. So far every issue I've seen discussed here has been pretty evenly polarized between the "more open" and "less open".. You could almost assign ideological political parties. (though I think that would be a negative development) Nobody here is saying that people can't have their homepages or blogs, they're just saying not to do it on an apache.org website. But THAT is not the topic at hand. You can already do this. No one has actually proposed taking that right away. Just creating an alias. Let me rephrase the proposal in a way that would have been accepted. "Create a DNS Alias called community.apache.org so that people don't confuse the existing and new Apache memeber/committer homepages with Official ASF pages" (if there is such a thing) The homepages are there and growing...deal with it. The DNS alias is ANOTHER issue that can be of advantage on both sides of the isle. -Andy -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 02:39 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: One that it doesn't address is Ben Hyde's view that that the chaotic "mess", where there are committers who don't even know that they can create a public_html, much less feel encouraged to do so... I recall somebody having some view along those lines, but it wasn't me. On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 05:55 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: ... documenting these things for all, including existing committers, is as well. A difficult and worth task.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
"Noel J. Bergman" wrote: > > One that it doesn't address is Ben Hyde's view that that the chaotic "mess", > where there are committers who don't even know that they can create a > public_html, much less feel encouraged to do so uniform education of (new) committers is one of the purposes of the incubator project. documenting these things for all, including existing committers, is as well.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
According to Stefano Mazzocchi: > I would like to propose the creation of the 'community.apache.org' web > site. +1, but I'd prefer a shorter name like 'home.apache.org' or 'people.apache.org'. > 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 Do we really need the '~' in there? > These homepages should at least contain: -1 on any strict rules/requirements regarding such a home page. People should decide on their own if and what they want to publish on there pages. Of course, some recommendations are probably a good idea (i.e., the content should be somehow related to the ASF and our projects). ciao... -- Lars Eilebrecht - Don't take life to seriously, [EMAIL PROTECTED]- you will never get out of it alive.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
According to Thom May: > > I've make a dream : > > > > http://name.apache.org/ > > > ew. --1 > This just creates more totally unnecessary work for root. Well, just do a wildcard DNS entry for something like *.home.apache.org and together with some mod_rewrite magic there isn't much to do apart from must creating a new account. But wildcard DNS entries are evil, so I'm -1 on this. :) ciao... -- Lars Eilebrecht - Don't take life to seriously, [EMAIL PROTECTED]- you will never get out of it alive.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
It has been implied by those who contribute massive amounts of their time to maintain our systems, that as soon as a secure and manageable system for revision control comes along that does not require local accounts (like subversion), then they will stop creating login accounts and might possibly start removing login accounts. This of course doesn't mean that ~userdir has to go away, just that it may not be supported by a login account. -aaron On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 11:47 PM, Steven Noels wrote: Aaron Bannert wrote: In the future not everyone will have an account on cvs.apache.org either. Could you elaborate on this?
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 01:39 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Our mission. Creating great software. Puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams. Releasing that widely under a license that is both open. Crafting an effective open license. One that doesn't entrap folks. This proposal is exactly about 'puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams'. That's what mailing lists are for. :) The ASF is currently fragmented. Allow me to say "balkanized". I see this as a problem. I want to 'puzzle out' how to solve this problem and I think that giving more personal context will help out. This is my personal experience. You might disagree. But try to remember if knowing apache group members in person helped the creation of the httpd community. As I recall, the Apache Group didn't all meet until shortly before the ASF (the corporation) was formed. The group had already been functioning very well for quite some time before the corporation was formed. Sure I'd love to organize gettogethers every week, but we don't have the resources for that. I believe the success of open source software depends heavily upon the fact that the internet provides a medium of communication that does _not_ require face-to-face meetings. -aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 01:28 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de facto representation of the face of the Apache community. FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this. Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna. People think I'm the one who is too negative! I work on Apache stuff in part because I like having my mind opened by really smart developers who oddly enough "self select". I can code anywhere. If you'll look the home pages haven't become that at all. They're all short little bios or "here is where you can find my homepage" type stuff. Some are "here's things I'm working on and here's my proposed solution to this and that".. I'm interested in having a place where I can quickly look up the basics of the guy who walks up to me at an ApacheCon or JUG meeting or something and says "I'm so and so" .. . I sneak off and say "oh yeah that guy"... I'm interested in knowing more about the men (and women, but lets face it there just ain' that many) behind the email addresses, bringing that personal touch to the community. For me that personal touch errodes the antipathy that seems to be coming from the "other side of the isle".. That is a noble goal, and I support this goal, although I do not think that an organized soapbox is the right way to do this. The short little "here's the link to my homepage, oh and I work on this and that project" pages are great. Anything other than that is off limits in my book. I'm interested in bringing others closer to the community whom currently do regard it as some kind of "star chamber". .(I'd say thats the prevalent view) I notice a lot of folks share these views, but I can tell there is a whole other side whom hold the exact opposite opinion. If having a homepage on apache.org becomes one of the valued privileges one gets after being accepted into the ASF, then we will only be replacing the star chamber with an ivory tower (with a megaphone). As others have said earlier in this discussion, this does not further the goals of the ASF. It keeps coming back down to this: open (we sit on the left) closed (you sit on the right) Woah there! The word "open" is an extremely loaded word in real-life to begin with. You can't possibly address a group of people who write "open source software" and divide this discussion on these lines. By the mere fact that anyone who is interested in software development within the ASF may join this mailing list and /openly/ discuss this and other topics means that we are all part of an open forum. I do not think it is fair to shun everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on the creation of a community.apache.org website as "closed". and it really keeps being that simple. I hear from the other side "lets make sure we silence these voices before they get too loud" and I guess I tend to think "if they get too loud I'll ignore them".. In fact the web pages are awesome for this because I don't even have to filter...Just don't go to them if they offend your sensibilities. But I keep hearing "we don't want to talk, but you shut up too" and that is justdepressing. Nobody here is saying that people can't have their homepages or blogs, they're just saying not to do it on an apache.org website. -aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Aaron Bannert wrote: In the future not everyone will have an account on cvs.apache.org either. Could you elaborate on this? -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sam Ruby wrote: > The ASF has supportted .forward files for e-mail for quite some time. > Would the mere act of putting a one line .forward file into your > ~/public_html directory with your favorite URL be OK? A bit more work for httpd than your "~name/public_html/community or some such" proposal, but combined with your suggested merger of http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html and ~coar/people.html, it would appear to address most objections I noted on the thread. One that it doesn't address is Ben Hyde's view that that the chaotic "mess", where there are committers who don't even know that they can create a public_html, much less feel encouraged to do so, is different from a seeming endorsement of community pages. Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > My personal experience shows that promoting personal context helps > creating more friendly communities. Do you believe that someone's first thought would be to look at some centralized index, or at the project's home page? What if the contributors list on each project were similarly (and optionally) instrumented as proposed by Sam Ruby's suggestion (above)? Or is that an infrastructure question, along with IM and Wiki topics? --- Noel
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Yet, a personal web site is just that - personal. It's purposely not part of the ASF community. There's no oversight. Therefore, I question what benefit can be gained by endorsing personal web sites hosted on the ASF infrastructure. -- justin I don't think we are talking about complete personal websites with blogs and such, with rants and honeymoon pictures, but about some pages that explain what the person does, who he is, and not much more. Every time a committer comes in the communities I'm in, he describes himself to the list. I just put that up on my page. What's the problem? If you are afraid of people trying to use Apache as a showcase for themselves, personal homepages are not the place to look at. If people are mature enough to keep a decent homepage at apache, then I'm seriously concerned about them having acess to Apache resources at all. Find me a personal page that has that problem and I'll agree with you. P.S. There are about 590 people with commit right now! -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 12:34 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Dear ASF citizens, I would like to propose the creation of the 'community.apache.org' web site. Currently, some people have their apache homepage on www.apache.org/~name and some on cvs.apache.org/~name and some don't have it. Why do people have their personal pages in the apache.org namespace? Is there any reason they don't or can't have those pages hosted elsewhere? This creates fragmentation and confusion. 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 and http://www.apache.org/~name http://cvs.apache.org/~name are automatically redirected there. -1 I am very much opposed to this idea. Apache is not a soapbox, it is a place to come and work on cool software with other people who are interested in doing the same thing. By putting personal pages up on an apache.org website, people are implying that their pages are endorsed by the ASF, which most certainly is not the case. - o - These homepages should at least contain: 1) short bio 2) picture (possibly funny) 3) sound file with the person pronouncing their name (so hopefully people will stop mispronouncing names! like mine, for example!) 4) interests and projects currently worked on. None of these belong on an apache.org website. It would be nice if each ASF project had a list of contributors, with each optionally linking to their own personal website, but I do not think these personal websites should reside on any apache.org server. It doesn't matter how you come up with that page/pages as long as it's reasonably valid HTML. 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) In the future not everyone will have an account on cvs.apache.org either. -aaron
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Sunday, December 1, 2002 7:23 PM -0800 Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are 450 people with commit access. Each one of them can put something in our servers that can screw the ASF, including web sites. Why is this any different? Because of community oversight. There are no mechanisms within the ASF that allow an individual any degree of freedom without some degree of oversight and mandated collaboration. For example, no release can be made without three committers approving it. For example, all CVS commit message end up at some mailing list where the interested participants review them. For better or worse, all of our processes are designed to limit the ability of a single person to corrupt the ASF or its projects. That's the benefit of the ASF - this isn't SourceForge where a person can do something on their own. IMHO, that is why Sam's allusion to the JSPA index left out a key point - within hours, the community had enforced oversight and removed that item from the front page (Ted moved it to the 'news' page). Furthermore, a discussion ensued in the appropriate forums as what to do next. Eventually, an 'official' position on the JSPA was reached and posted on the website. The community oversight process worked beautifully. Yet, a personal web site is just that - personal. It's purposely not part of the ASF community. There's no oversight. Therefore, I question what benefit can be gained by endorsing personal web sites hosted on the ASF infrastructure. -- justin P.S. There are about 590 people with commit right now!
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Sunday, December 1, 2002 8:25 PM -0500 "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So Sam Ruby is the ECMA conveiner for the .NET CLI.. I propose (since its well known) that he's an apache committer and the PMC chair of Jakarta that he be told he can't do that anymore. Ugh! No, you are missing the point here. Sam can do whatever he wants to do as "Sam Ruby." I'm not going to tell Sam what to do *ever*. But, I feel that if he decides to rant about ECMA or .NET or IBM or Sun or the price of pigs in Beirut, then he shouldn't do that within the forum of the ASF unless the foundation is willing to legally stand behind his views. The foundation is responsible for everything on our servers. I don't care for it to be associated with *personal* views. Go find a different soapbox to stand on top of. Your contributions to the ASF don't merit you getting a personal bully pulpit. -- justin Return my comments to the context they were in. I was responding to this: about what happens when you make a comment about another company (read, partner) in your private space -- if it's possible to trace that you are an apache guy, even if it's obscure, then that is bad. I can see this is a very emotional issue for you, however I request the courtesy of not taking me out of context and making it into the issue as a whole. I cannot believe a DNS entry could be so controversial. Personally I don't believe the proposal should have been here, it should have been on "infrastructure" and those whom are "committers" to infrastructure should have voted. If someone had a serious need to wield influence then they'd need to contribute to the infrastructure. However, that's my PERSONAL soapbox... Thanks, -Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: The foundation is responsible for everything on our servers. I don't care for it to be associated with *personal* views. Go find a different soapbox to stand on top of. Your contributions to the ASF don't merit you getting a personal bully pulpit. -- justin There are 450 people with commit access. Each one of them can put something in our servers that can screw the ASF, including web sites. Why is this any different? -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Sunday, December 1, 2002 8:25 PM -0500 "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So Sam Ruby is the ECMA conveiner for the .NET CLI.. I propose (since its well known) that he's an apache committer and the PMC chair of Jakarta that he be told he can't do that anymore. Ugh! No, you are missing the point here. Sam can do whatever he wants to do as "Sam Ruby." I'm not going to tell Sam what to do *ever*. But, I feel that if he decides to rant about ECMA or .NET or IBM or Sun or the price of pigs in Beirut, then he shouldn't do that within the forum of the ASF unless the foundation is willing to legally stand behind his views. The foundation is responsible for everything on our servers. I don't care for it to be associated with *personal* views. Go find a different soapbox to stand on top of. Your contributions to the ASF don't merit you getting a personal bully pulpit. -- justin
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
David Reid wrote: > > > 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. then we disagree. > > 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? yes. i happen to believe in trusting people, not policing them. so tell committers they can put whatever they like there, as long as it won't reflect poorly on the hosting organisation. that's just good manners. > 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)? you are under no obligation to participate, and i rather resent the implication i see that you think *other* people shouldn't spend their time on this list in a way *you* would rather not. perhaps that's not your message above, but that's what i'm reading in it, and my previous remark applies: a) don't participate if you think it's a waste of time, b) don't read others' messages likewise, and c) don't obstruct people who choose to spend their time this way. i apologize if i have misconstrued your message.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
James Cox wrote: You have a corporate viewpoint of how Apache's relationship with Sun should be managed. I tend to think letting them know is fine. (Somehow any explanation of this would probably start sounding like the cluetrain manifesto...which I never read because it was too long winded, but whatever).. Let them decide based on the merits on whether they want to continue their association.. Not meaning to pick on you Andrew but this comment really made me feel i had to respond. Excellent. Sun has a long standing relationship with the ASF, one that has taken alot of time to build, as well as contributed alot either way with regards to both code and community development. I would hate to see a situation where just one person could destroy that relationship.. and the above comment suggests that you don't really understand [the benefits of] the ASF's association with Sun. if the association is that fragile to where one person saying the wrong thing would jeapordize it, then I doubt its worth that much. Furthermore, if the relationship is based on the abillity to silence individuals who work in ways that are contra to Sun's interests then boy thats not too good for Apache. whilst i support in general a "people.apache.org" style structure similar to people.netscape.com and similar, just reading Jamie Zawinski's various rants about what happens when you make a comment about another company (read, partner) in your private space -- if it's possible to trace that you are an apache guy, even if it's obscure, then that is bad. So Sam Ruby is the ECMA conveiner for the .NET CLI.. I propose (since its well known) that he's an apache committer and the PMC chair of Jakarta that he be told he can't do that anymore. You and I hold an entirely different view. I think you just decentralize control, set objectives and simple rules and it will all work out. Complex behavior will result (just like the damn birds that crap all over my Miata). You apparently have the need for greater order. This is an area where you have to be especially careful, and the first amendment argument doesn't really work here. If i were able to, i'd veto this on grounds that it'd be too difficult to maintain -- and get this -- people should be using their own web-domains and httpd/forrest/etc to get them working ! centralization of Control. Its necessary to deceive Sun to maintain that relationship? If you're not the one maintaining it, why would you veto it..what do you care? -Andy -- james - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:01 PM, Ben Hyde wrote: > > I've attempted to enumerate some of my concerns .. > > I'm done. - ben I find myself (sadly) once again agreeing with you... david
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
James Cox wrote: Not meaning to pick on you Andrew but this comment really made me feel i had to respond. Sun has a long standing relationship with the ASF, one that has taken alot of time to build, as well as contributed alot either way with regards to both code and community development. I would hate to see a situation where just one person could destroy that relationship.. and the above comment suggests that you don't really understand [the benefits of] the ASF's association with Sun. I believe I have a fair appreciation of the value of this relationship. Now, look at what an *ASF*member* put on http://jakarta.apache.org/ at one point: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/~checkout~/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html?rev=1.52&content-type=text/html One way to solve this is to remove all commit access to all apache.org web sites from all committers and members. And while we are at it, we should probably drop @apache.org e-mail addresses. Oh, and since this particular topic was discussed to death on the general@jakarta.apache.org mailing list, we should seriously consider whether or not the risks of having ASF hosted mailing lists outweigh the benefits. Another way to address this is via education and community pressure. - Sam Ruby
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:01 PM, Ben Hyde wrote: I've attempted to enumerate some of my concerns .. I'm done. - ben
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
"Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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.
>
> +1 - These are the words of wisdom and they are delicious.
+1 as well. IMO it's a well-informed position:
google("reactance" "cognitive dissonance" "social comparison")
Food for thought.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
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. +1 - These are the words of wisdom and they are delicious. Thank you sam. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> You have a corporate viewpoint of how Apache's relationship with Sun > should be managed. I tend to think letting them know is fine. (Somehow > any explanation of this would probably start sounding like the cluetrain > manifesto...which I never read because it was too long winded, but > whatever).. Let them decide based on the merits on whether they want to > continue their association.. > Not meaning to pick on you Andrew but this comment really made me feel i had to respond. Sun has a long standing relationship with the ASF, one that has taken alot of time to build, as well as contributed alot either way with regards to both code and community development. I would hate to see a situation where just one person could destroy that relationship.. and the above comment suggests that you don't really understand [the benefits of] the ASF's association with Sun. whilst i support in general a "people.apache.org" style structure similar to people.netscape.com and similar, just reading Jamie Zawinski's various rants about what happens when you make a comment about another company (read, partner) in your private space -- if it's possible to trace that you are an apache guy, even if it's obscure, then that is bad. This is an area where you have to be especially careful, and the first amendment argument doesn't really work here. If i were able to, i'd veto this on grounds that it'd be too difficult to maintain -- and get this -- people should be using their own web-domains and httpd/forrest/etc to get them working ! -- james
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Right, well the home pages are there now. And right now they are more closely associated with Apache itself than community.apache.org would. You're bringing up a new issue as to whether they should be taken away. The matter at hand is the creation of a new alias to in a way make them more associated with individuals and Apache communities than "apache.org" itself. You have a corporate viewpoint of how Apache's relationship with Sun should be managed. I tend to think letting them know is fine. (Somehow any explanation of this would probably start sounding like the cluetrain manifesto...which I never read because it was too long winded, but whatever).. Let them decide based on the merits on whether they want to continue their association.. Regardless, I think this is a matter of trust and distribution of control. -Andy I'm afraid of it reflecting poorly upon the ASF. Not matter how hard you try to say that the content isn't representative of the ASF as a whole, as long as the content is hosted on our site/domain, it will be deemed as such. Imagine the day when one of our committers rants about Java on their community.apache.org/~name page and it is posted to /. and Sun gets its panties in a knot due to the bad publicity. If a member or committer does this in a non-ASF forum, fine. But, giving people a platform from which to imply association with the ASF isn't helpful to the foundation or its mission. Reacting passively to these situations isn't going to help. Once the story would be posted on /., we're all in hot water. I believe the best course of action is not to encourage this behavior. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sam Ruby wrote: The ASF I wish to be a part of is one and/or create is one that tolerates differences in points of view or approach to solving problems. Amen. -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
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
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
--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
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
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
> it looks like several issues are getting conflated again. Big suprise. > 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
> On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 05:50 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Ben Hyde 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... david
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 05:50 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: 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/ 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? - ben
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
I've attempted to enumerate some of my concerns about a suite of community pages. I gather that people see benefit in such pages. I want to be clear that I'm note deaf to those arguments, just unconvinced of those benefits. On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 04:39 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: This proposal is exactly about 'puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams'. That's a hypothesis. I don't particularly buy into it. I'm one of those people who considers the term "company party" a bit of an oxymoron. The world is full of people I don't particularly want to be closer too, but with whom I'm happy to work closely. I like the urban rather than the small town model of what makes a vibrant community. The ASF is currently fragmented. Allow me to say "balkanized". The fragmentation that concerns me is around only a few things. I don't feel that getting to know all the folks in all the projects is one them. 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. Possibly, possibly not. I've found it fascinating how not knowing personal details seems to have enabled a focus on the task rather than the peripheral. My contributions to these projects is independent of my age, my job, my achievements, my screw ups, my degree. 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. I was _very late_ to the party, but my impression is that in the majority of cases only a handful knew each other outside the work until the decision was taken to consider forming the foundation. I've still not met the majority of the HTTPD PMC, nor do I know their age, their past, their hobbies, etc. etc. Note that if you form loyalties based on other attributes, say a common love of ballroom dancing, then when it comes time to argue out a tough decision about memory management you might just dodge the hard work to maintain that relationship. - ben
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
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
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
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
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
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:13:26PM -0600, B. W. Fitzpatrick wrote: > I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage > used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de > facto representation of the face of the Apache community. > 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: I'm concerned that a few highly vocal members might generate the impression that the foundation is taking positions that it's not. I would be much more concerned about committers having @apache.org mailing list addresses. I hope people aren't using except when they are acting in a role related to that of the foundation. - ben
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 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
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, 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 But then again - I am quite happy with the ~dirkx usage for unofficial, informal yet somehow apache related bits I need to distribute. I'd like to keep a mechanism like that in place. Dw
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
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
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
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
I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of the verbiage used, if this whole community thing comes to fruition, it becomes a de facto representation of the face of the Apache community. FWIW, I'm -1 on the whole thing. I'm here to help grow a community around open-source software, not around a bunch of touchy-feely self-promoting web pages--if I want that, I'll join some weblog site somewhere. Apache.org is not the place for this. Wow.. I really do feel like I'm at the Congress of Vienna. People think I'm the one who is too negative! I work on Apache stuff in part because I like having my mind opened by really smart developers who oddly enough "self select". I can code anywhere. If you'll look the home pages haven't become that at all. They're all short little bios or "here is where you can find my homepage" type stuff. Some are "here's things I'm working on and here's my proposed solution to this and that".. I'm interested in having a place where I can quickly look up the basics of the guy who walks up to me at an ApacheCon or JUG meeting or something and says "I'm so and so" .. . I sneak off and say "oh yeah that guy"... I'm interested in knowing more about the men (and women, but lets face it there just ain' that many) behind the email addresses, bringing that personal touch to the community. For me that personal touch errodes the antipathy that seems to be coming from the "other side of the isle".. I'm interested in bringing others closer to the community whom currently do regard it as some kind of "star chamber". .(I'd say thats the prevalent view) I notice a lot of folks share these views, but I can tell there is a whole other side whom hold the exact opposite opinion. 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. I hear from the other side "lets make sure we silence these voices before they get too loud" and I guess I tend to think "if they get too loud I'll ignore them".. In fact the web pages are awesome for this because I don't even have to filter...Just don't go to them if they offend your sensibilities. But I keep hearing "we don't want to talk, but you shut up too" and that is justdepressing. -Andy -Fitz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: I'm concerned that a few highly vocal members might generate the impression that the foundation is taking positions that it's not. I would be much more concerned about committers having @apache.org mailing list addresses. - Sam Ruby
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
--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
"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. 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." -Andy Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 December 2002 19:43 > Sander Striker wrote: >> >>> 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
André Malo wrote: > > yep. But I don't understand the general problem. What about a simple > > > ServerName community.apache.org > Userdir community > # or similar > > > instead of the weird dot files, subdirs of public_html, redirects etc?! that works iff you know someone's username on cvs.apache.org. it does nothing to create/maintain a list of those people, much less those who actually want a page listed.
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
ServerName community.apache.org
Userdir community
# or similar
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
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > --On Sunday, December 1, 2002 12:55 PM -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://cvs.apache.org/~coar/people.html>, updated nightly, and > > certainly transformable into a more 'official' process. > > Oh, ick. -- justin ick to what? its existence, or the format? :-)
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
Sander Striker wrote: > > > 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. at the moment it's private and need-to-know and that way by intention. 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.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
--On Sunday, December 1, 2002 12:55 PM -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sander Striker wrote: Right now the homepages aren't linked to from anywhere and certainly not promoted. http://cvs.apache.org/~coar/people.html>, updated nightly, and certainly transformable into a more 'official' process. Oh, ick. -- justin
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
I'll see what I can do about that :-) How about now: http://www.freeroller.net/page/acoliver/20021201#people_at_apache 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. Ken I suggest something like: "These are the homepages and voices of the Apache Community. These pages represent the committers and members of the Apache Software Foundation. Apache is not a star chamber or closed society, its made up of people just like you whom happen to be developers. Through their contribution to our software development community they have been recognized as committers and members and earned through merit the right to associate themselves here. The opinions expressed by these invidviduals represent only themselves, but over time hopefully important issues are correllated and aggregated into a consensus which will guide our community. " with the obvious keywords linked to the obvious ASF pages (like consensus, community, etc)... Anyhow, this is only a suggestion. Thanks for that page Ken. -Andy Sander Striker wrote: 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. 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. > > 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
Sander Striker wrote: > > Right now the homepages aren't linked to from anywhere and certainly > not promoted. http://cvs.apache.org/~coar/people.html>, updated nightly, and certainly transformable into a more 'official' process.
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
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. -Andy 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. 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.
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
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... 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. 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. 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. 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. The easiest way to avoid a star stage is not to build the stage. - ben
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. Clever. It makes people that are using their home dir as an Apache project-related stuff dashboard continue as such and add personal info if/when they want to to the subdir. +1 -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
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
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]>
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Sylvain Wallez wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Dear ASF citizens, I would like to propose the creation of the 'community.apache.org' web site. Currently, some people have their apache homepage on www.apache.org/~name and some on cvs.apache.org/~name and some don't have it. This creates fragmentation and confusion. 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 +1, although I would prefer a shorter name like "people" that was proposed at some time. +1. "people" is good if only homepages are hosted. For community-wide content community is better :) 1) short bio 2) picture (possibly funny) 3) sound file with the person pronouncing their name (so hopefully people will stop mispronouncing names! like mine, for example!) 4) interests and projects currently worked on. +1, although the sound file (and maybe the picture too - although it's good to put faces on names) should be optional. +1, -0 for audio. Vadim http://www.apache.org/~stefano/community/ Funny attraction-repulsion thing. Can it scale up to the several hundreds of Apache committers ? Sylvain
Re: [proposal] creation of communitity.apache.org
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: You have a vanity license plate don't you? ;-) May be ;--)
