Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
Sorry for the delay, been out for a couple of days. I'll check the user groups and permissions. Cheers! Hernan Kevan Miller wrote: I thought that non-committer write access to Confluence had been turned off. I now see that it was one of your questions -- my answer is now. Hernan, can you make this happen? WRT further process questions, see inline... --kevan On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote: Guys we need to wrap up this discussion. I'm not sure where are we standing but still have a bunch of questions. A few things that look clear to me thus far - We'll request every contributor to submit a CLA. Filing instructions are provided in the Individual Contributor License Agreement itself available here http://www.apache.org/licenses - Every contributor will have to expressly communicate intention for contributing with the project's documentation sending a email to dev@geronimo.apache.org mailto:dev@geronimo.apache.org Some things still pending - Having a CLA on file will suffice to grant edit access to the doc or we'll seek PMC voting? We should create a geronimo/project/confluence-contributors.txt file in svn. When someone requests access and we've verified a CLA is on file, add their name to this file with confluence information. commit the new contents to svn. - Although a CLA is ASF wide we should provide access to only those interested in contributing to Geronimo's documentation. Do we already keep a separate list? Does the above file address this? - When do we make effective such access restriction? Now. - What Confluence spaces will be affected? All. - How do we deal with existing content? We can not apply this retroactively. Retroactively request ICLAs from past contributors. Address the problem when/if we want to use our current content in some new way Once all these are sorted out I'll update the Apache Geronimo Policies on the web site (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-policies.html) to reflect these changes Cool. --kevan
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
I thought that non-committer write access to Confluence had been turned off. I now see that it was one of your questions -- my answer is now. Hernan, can you make this happen? WRT further process questions, see inline... --kevan On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote: Guys we need to wrap up this discussion. I'm not sure where are we standing but still have a bunch of questions. A few things that look clear to me thus far - We'll request every contributor to submit a CLA. Filing instructions are provided in the Individual Contributor License Agreement itself available here http://www.apache.org/licenses - Every contributor will have to expressly communicate intention for contributing with the project's documentation sending a email to dev@geronimo.apache.org Some things still pending - Having a CLA on file will suffice to grant edit access to the doc or we'll seek PMC voting? We should create a geronimo/project/confluence-contributors.txt file in svn. When someone requests access and we've verified a CLA is on file, add their name to this file with confluence information. commit the new contents to svn. - Although a CLA is ASF wide we should provide access to only those interested in contributing to Geronimo's documentation. Do we already keep a separate list? Does the above file address this? - When do we make effective such access restriction? Now. - What Confluence spaces will be affected? All. - How do we deal with existing content? We can not apply this retroactively. Retroactively request ICLAs from past contributors. Address the problem when/if we want to use our current content in some new way Once all these are sorted out I'll update the Apache Geronimo Policies on the web site (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-policies.html ) to reflect these changes Cool. --kevan
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
Guys we need to wrap up this discussion. I'm not sure where are we standing but still have a bunch of questions. A few things that look clear to me thus far - We'll request every contributor to submit a CLA. Filing instructions are provided in the Individual Contributor License Agreement itself available here http://www.apache.org/licenses - Every contributor will have to expressly communicate intention for contributing with the project's documentation sending a email to dev@geronimo.apache.org Some things still pending - Having a CLA on file will suffice to grant edit access to the doc or we'll seek PMC voting? - Although a CLA is ASF wide we should provide access to only those interested in contributing to Geronimo's documentation. Do we already keep a separate list? - When do we make effective such access restriction? - What Confluence spaces will be affected? - How do we deal with existing content? We can not apply this retroactively. Once all these are sorted out I'll update the Apache Geronimo Policies on the web site (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-policies.html) to reflect these changes Cheers! Hernan
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote: Guys we need to wrap up this discussion. I'm not sure where are we standing but still have a bunch of questions. Hi Hernan, Agreed. Sorry I've been out due to some family health issues... A few things that look clear to me thus far - We'll request every contributor to submit a CLA. Filing instructions are provided in the Individual Contributor License Agreement itself available here http://www.apache.org/licenses - Every contributor will have to expressly communicate intention for contributing with the project's documentation sending a email to dev@geronimo.apache.org I'd be happy with that. Some things still pending - Having a CLA on file will suffice to grant edit access to the doc or we'll seek PMC voting? I don't think a vote is necessary. - Although a CLA is ASF wide we should provide access to only those interested in contributing to Geronimo's documentation. Do we already keep a separate list? Not that I know of. - When do we make effective such access restriction? As soon as we have a decision. - What Confluence spaces will be affected? - How do we deal with existing content? We can not apply this retroactively. We can investigate what our risks are. Ask for old contributors to submit a CLA and document their past submissions are licensed to the ASF. I don't really know what are options will be. Anyone care to find out? Once all these are sorted out I'll update the Apache Geronimo Policies on the web site (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-policies.html ) to reflect these changes Sounds good. --kevan
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
Great work david!!! I think some of these people are axis committers ... the ones with opensource.lk email addresses. If they are, do we need another CLA? Or did you already look and my idea that they are committers on another project is wrong? thanks david jencks On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:00 PM, David Blevins wrote: On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Jason Warner wrote: This may be a dumb question, but what happens if a user submitted content and then submitted a CLA sometime later on. Are CLA's retroactive or does the content submitted before a CLA need to be resubmitted? Definitely not a dumb question. In the concrete case of someone making contributions to project A then filing a CLA and later becoming a committer to project A, I'd think the CLA would cover all contributions. Similarly, if someone made some contributions and we asked them to file a CLA and they did, I'd count that as good enough. Likely some other scenarios which are less clear, but those two cover the common cases. And speaking of CLAs, here's a report of users, and their edits, for whom I could not find a CLA: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.log I think the easiest thing is to just ask for CLAs from everyone on this list (definitely some familiar faces in that list). Afterwards we can deal with what's left which will be a process of evaluating the contributions and making a judgment call on if they fall under either the minor patch or the major contribution category. -David
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:24 AM, David Jencks wrote: Great work david!!! I think some of these people are axis committers ... the ones with opensource.lk email addresses. If they are, do we need another CLA? Or did you already look and my idea that they are committers on another project is wrong? I did a manual look for CLA by last name for everyone who made any edits. They might be there under a different name/spelling and possibly I missed them. -David On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:00 PM, David Blevins wrote: On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Jason Warner wrote: This may be a dumb question, but what happens if a user submitted content and then submitted a CLA sometime later on. Are CLA's retroactive or does the content submitted before a CLA need to be resubmitted? Definitely not a dumb question. In the concrete case of someone making contributions to project A then filing a CLA and later becoming a committer to project A, I'd think the CLA would cover all contributions. Similarly, if someone made some contributions and we asked them to file a CLA and they did, I'd count that as good enough. Likely some other scenarios which are less clear, but those two cover the common cases. And speaking of CLAs, here's a report of users, and their edits, for whom I could not find a CLA: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.log I think the easiest thing is to just ask for CLAs from everyone on this list (definitely some familiar faces in that list). Afterwards we can deal with what's left which will be a process of evaluating the contributions and making a judgment call on if they fall under either the minor patch or the major contribution category. -David
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
David Blevins wrote: And speaking of CLAs, here's a report of users, and their edits, for whom I could not find a CLA: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.log I think the easiest thing is to just ask for CLAs from everyone on this list (definitely some familiar faces in that list). Afterwards we can deal with what's left which will be a process of evaluating the contributions and making a judgment call on if they fall under either the minor patch or the major contribution category. Egads, I'm on the list! I see the forms for Contributor License Agreements at http://www.apache.org/licenses/. However, from reading the FAQ I do not see where to submit or record the form. Can someone point me to the process? -- Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Dan Becker wrote: David Blevins wrote: And speaking of CLAs, here's a report of users, and their edits, for whom I could not find a CLA: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.log I think the easiest thing is to just ask for CLAs from everyone on this list (definitely some familiar faces in that list). Afterwards we can deal with what's left which will be a process of evaluating the contributions and making a judgment call on if they fall under either the minor patch or the major contribution category. Egads, I'm on the list! I see the forms for Contributor License Agreements at http://www.apache.org/licenses/ . However, from reading the FAQ I do not see where to submit or record the form. Can someone point me to the process? That info is in the ICLA, itself: If you have not already done so, please complete and send an original signed Agreement to The Apache Software Foundation, 1901 Munsey Drive, Forest Hill, MD 21050-2747, U.S.A. If necessary, you may send it by facsimile to the Foundation at +1-919-573-9199. --kevan
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
You can also send a scanned copy to secretary at apache dot org as noted on the licenses page Dan mentioned earlier, if that's any easier for anyone. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Dan Becker wrote: David Blevins wrote: And speaking of CLAs, here's a report of users, and their edits, for whom I could not find a CLA: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.loghttp://people.apache.org/%7Edblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.log I think the easiest thing is to just ask for CLAs from everyone on this list (definitely some familiar faces in that list). Afterwards we can deal with what's left which will be a process of evaluating the contributions and making a judgment call on if they fall under either the minor patch or the major contribution category. Egads, I'm on the list! I see the forms for Contributor License Agreements at http://www.apache.org/licenses/. However, from reading the FAQ I do not see where to submit or record the form. Can someone point me to the process? That info is in the ICLA, itself: If you have not already done so, please complete and send an original signed Agreement to The Apache Software Foundation, 1901 Munsey Drive, Forest Hill, MD 21050-2747, U.S.A. If necessary, you may send it by facsimile to the Foundation at +1-919-573-9199. --kevan -- ~Jason Warner
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:24 AM, David Jencks wrote: Great work david!!! I think some of these people are axis committers ... the ones with opensource.lk email addresses. If they are, do we need another CLA? Or did you already look and my idea that they are committers on another project is wrong? A CLA is ASF-wide, not project specific. So, it would definitely cover the changes... On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:00 PM, David Blevins wrote: On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Jason Warner wrote: This may be a dumb question, but what happens if a user submitted content and then submitted a CLA sometime later on. Are CLA's retroactive or does the content submitted before a CLA need to be resubmitted? Definitely not a dumb question. In the concrete case of someone making contributions to project A then filing a CLA and later becoming a committer to project A, I'd think the CLA would cover all contributions. Similarly, if someone made some contributions and we asked them to file a CLA and they did, I'd count that as good enough. Likely some other scenarios which are less clear, but those two cover the common cases. And speaking of CLAs, here's a report of users, and their edits, for whom I could not find a CLA: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.log I think the easiest thing is to just ask for CLAs from everyone on this list (definitely some familiar faces in that list). Afterwards we can deal with what's left which will be a process of evaluating the contributions and making a judgment call on if they fall under either the minor patch or the major contribution category. Getting CLA on file certainly seems to help reduce any concerns. Not sure if a CLA applies retroactively to prior submissions. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
It seems like we should start from scratch in our next major release then ;-) For the next Geronimo v 2.x release we would set a new Confluence space and give write access to geronimo-committers and geronimo-contributors. geronimo-contributors would only group individual users who have expressed interest in contributing to Geronimo documentation and filed a CLA. In addition, we would enable confluence-users (default user group) to have Comment Create rights, however these comments would not show up in the exported HTML version (only in Confluence). This user group would later replace geronimo-users. New spaces where only geronimo-committers and geronimo-contributors have write access to will have a different HTML auto export template to include standard ASF license notice one every single page (in the HTML source). Such new spaces would have to be developed from scratch, that is not carrying over any content previously used in other documentation releases. This should hopefully exclude certain sections developed entirely by committers for which a CLA is already on file. Cheers! Hernan Kevan Miller wrote: On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:41 PM, David Blevins wrote: It's already ASF policy that an ICLA be on file for anyone to get write access to a confluence space used for official documentation or a website (plain wiki usage is exempt). Updated a good 40~ cwiki spaces to use the asf-cla group instead of confluence-users, including ours, a couple weeks ago after some abuse so we're compliant with the minimum policy. Some groups, like the Incubator, are talking that you need to be a committer to get write access -- not just have a CLA on file. I'm not sure I see the need for raising the bar that high. I like the idea of the check box as an alternate to having a CLA on file, assuming this is kosher with infra. All, I found the following source of documentation on the subject -- http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F Looks like we have some choices. One of the decisions will be what to do about documentation that has already been contributed without a CLA. I'd like to hear what the community thinks we should do... --kevan
Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
On Apr 20, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: One of the decisions will be what to do about documentation that has already been contributed without a CLA. I pulled down the revisions for these spaces: GMOxDOC10, GMOxDOC11, GMOxDOC12, GMOxDOC20, GMOxDOC21, GMOxSITE Report: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-space-revisions.log We should be able to clear the docs we have. Right off the bat, it doesn't look too bad. -David
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:42 PM, David Blevins wrote: On Apr 20, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: One of the decisions will be what to do about documentation that has already been contributed without a CLA. I pulled down the revisions for these spaces: GMOxDOC10, GMOxDOC11, GMOxDOC12, GMOxDOC20, GMOxDOC21, GMOxSITE Report: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-space-revisions.log We should be able to clear the docs we have. Right off the bat, it doesn't look too bad. Here's another report with things grouped by user: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-by-user.log Going to take a stab at getting a list of people who may not have CLAs on file. -David
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
This may be a dumb question, but what happens if a user submitted content and then submitted a CLA sometime later on. Are CLA's retroactive or does the content submitted before a CLA need to be resubmitted? On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:42 PM, David Blevins wrote: On Apr 20, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: One of the decisions will be what to do about documentation that has already been contributed without a CLA. I pulled down the revisions for these spaces: GMOxDOC10, GMOxDOC11, GMOxDOC12, GMOxDOC20, GMOxDOC21, GMOxSITE Report: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-space-revisions.loghttp://people.apache.org/%7Edblevins/gmo-space-revisions.log We should be able to clear the docs we have. Right off the bat, it doesn't look too bad. Here's another report with things grouped by user: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-by-user.loghttp://people.apache.org/%7Edblevins/gmo-revisions-by-user.log Going to take a stab at getting a list of people who may not have CLAs on file. -David -- ~Jason Warner
Re: Doc IP Clearance (was Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki)
On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Jason Warner wrote: This may be a dumb question, but what happens if a user submitted content and then submitted a CLA sometime later on. Are CLA's retroactive or does the content submitted before a CLA need to be resubmitted? Definitely not a dumb question. In the concrete case of someone making contributions to project A then filing a CLA and later becoming a committer to project A, I'd think the CLA would cover all contributions. Similarly, if someone made some contributions and we asked them to file a CLA and they did, I'd count that as good enough. Likely some other scenarios which are less clear, but those two cover the common cases. And speaking of CLAs, here's a report of users, and their edits, for whom I could not find a CLA: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/gmo-revisions-no-cla.log I think the easiest thing is to just ask for CLAs from everyone on this list (definitely some familiar faces in that list). Afterwards we can deal with what's left which will be a process of evaluating the contributions and making a judgment call on if they fall under either the minor patch or the major contribution category. -David
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:41 PM, David Blevins wrote: It's already ASF policy that an ICLA be on file for anyone to get write access to a confluence space used for official documentation or a website (plain wiki usage is exempt). Updated a good 40~ cwiki spaces to use the asf-cla group instead of confluence-users, including ours, a couple weeks ago after some abuse so we're compliant with the minimum policy. Some groups, like the Incubator, are talking that you need to be a committer to get write access -- not just have a CLA on file. I'm not sure I see the need for raising the bar that high. I like the idea of the check box as an alternate to having a CLA on file, assuming this is kosher with infra. All, I found the following source of documentation on the subject -- http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F Looks like we have some choices. One of the decisions will be what to do about documentation that has already been contributed without a CLA. I'd like to hear what the community thinks we should do... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
It's already ASF policy that an ICLA be on file for anyone to get write access to a confluence space used for official documentation or a website (plain wiki usage is exempt). Updated a good 40~ cwiki spaces to use the asf-cla group instead of confluence-users, including ours, a couple weeks ago after some abuse so we're compliant with the minimum policy. Some groups, like the Incubator, are talking that you need to be a committer to get write access -- not just have a CLA on file. I'm not sure I see the need for raising the bar that high. I like the idea of the check box as an alternate to having a CLA on file, assuming this is kosher with infra. -David On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
If we are going to restrict access to our wiki doc then we should limit grating access to the project members. I'm not in favor of a massive asf-cla group cheers! hernan David Blevins wrote: It's already ASF policy that an ICLA be on file for anyone to get write access to a confluence space used for official documentation or a website (plain wiki usage is exempt). Updated a good 40~ cwiki spaces to use the asf-cla group instead of confluence-users, including ours, a couple weeks ago after some abuse so we're compliant with the minimum policy. Some groups, like the Incubator, are talking that you need to be a committer to get write access -- not just have a CLA on file. I'm not sure I see the need for raising the bar that high. I like the idea of the check box as an alternate to having a CLA on file, assuming this is kosher with infra. -David On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Personal preference I guess. Only 60~ people in that group and everyone in it has full name, address, telephone, etc. on file. Seems very restricted already. We have to review all the edits anyway, even if they come from other committers, so I don't really see an upside unless we start to get a lot of low quality contributions -- which IMHO would be a good problem to have. I definitely think our website should remain restricted to committers. I sort of see that as separate from the rest of our spaces. -David On Apr 18, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote: If we are going to restrict access to our wiki doc then we should limit grating access to the project members. I'm not in favor of a massive asf-cla group cheers! hernan David Blevins wrote: It's already ASF policy that an ICLA be on file for anyone to get write access to a confluence space used for official documentation or a website (plain wiki usage is exempt). Updated a good 40~ cwiki spaces to use the asf-cla group instead of confluence-users, including ours, a couple weeks ago after some abuse so we're compliant with the minimum policy. Some groups, like the Incubator, are talking that you need to be a committer to get write access -- not just have a CLA on file. I'm not sure I see the need for raising the bar that high. I like the idea of the check box as an alternate to having a CLA on file, assuming this is kosher with infra. -David On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/ contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
I am supportive of Erik's suggestion. I am absolutely against a process involving the submission of an iCLA. Is a checkbox really required? Isn't a disclaimer enough to protect IP rights? Thanks, Gianny On 17/04/2008, at 4:01 AM, Jason Warner wrote: I'd be more inclined to do something akin to what Erik suggested. I'm concerned that the process to gain access to editing the wiki would deter many of the people that add a page here and there that describes something they've done. A number of our contributions come from people who are just making a one time edit. I can't imagine many of them would go through the effort to gain contributor access to add a single page. On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Erik B. Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that we definitely need to address IP issues around documentation/the wiki... but isn't there any way to accomplish this without adding barriers to users editing content? Can we do something like wikipedia does for editing content where there is a checkbox or a notice or something saying You agree to license your contributions under the Apache Software License (similar to how JIRA is currently) -- Erik B. Craig On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan -- ~Jason Warner
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Gianny Damour wrote: I am supportive of Erik's suggestion. I am absolutely against a process involving the submission of an iCLA. Is a checkbox really required? Isn't a disclaimer enough to protect IP rights? Well, I think we can assume that a checkbox was a requirement for Jira- based submissions (a disclaimer was not sufficient). Since, Wiki submissions are essentially the same, I don't think a simple disclaimer will be sufficient... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Just as Dan said, I think a lightweight process would be a good idea. Not to deter users from contributing, nor hinder those approving. If we haven't had a problem with the Jira check-box format for IP reasons, this seems like not only a lightweight process but a familiar one at that. -Joseph Leong On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Gianny Damour wrote: I am supportive of Erik's suggestion. I am absolutely against a process involving the submission of an iCLA. Is a checkbox really required? Isn't a disclaimer enough to protect IP rights? Well, I think we can assume that a checkbox was a requirement for Jira-based submissions (a disclaimer was not sufficient). Since, Wiki submissions are essentially the same, I don't think a simple disclaimer will be sufficient... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Back on the check box option, we can customize Confluence so it includes an additional step (the check box) before enabling to save the page. There are two approaches, one is to create a Confluence plugin to replace the current editpage.action and the other is to create a new custom editpage velocity macro and make some changes in Confluence configs to use this new functionality. In either case we'll need to ASF infra blessing to implement this change. I think all ASF projects using Confluence can benefit from this change. Any velocity/confluence folk monitoring this thread that want to volunteer !? ;-) I'm just not having the spare cycles to investigate this more in detail. Cheers! Hernan Joseph Leong wrote: Just as Dan said, I think a lightweight process would be a good idea. Not to deter users from contributing, nor hinder those approving. If we haven't had a problem with the Jira check-box format for IP reasons, this seems like not only a lightweight process but a familiar one at that. -Joseph Leong On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Gianny Damour wrote: I am supportive of Erik's suggestion. I am absolutely against a process involving the submission of an iCLA. Is a checkbox really required? Isn't a disclaimer enough to protect IP rights? Well, I think we can assume that a checkbox was a requirement for Jira-based submissions (a disclaimer was not sufficient). Since, Wiki submissions are essentially the same, I don't think a simple disclaimer will be sufficient... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
I agree that this should be as light-weight as possible. There are a couple of suggestions that I would make to the process: 1) Make sure that people are aware of the fact that they can submit an ICLA at any time (not just after we have voted). 2) We should standardize on the format of the documents to be attached to JIRA. Or at least suggest a preferred format. Without edit rights to the wiki, it is (for me at least) difficult to create 'wiki marked up' text from scratch. Having rich text be the preferred format would (almost) ensure that anyone would be able to create documents. 3) We should try to determine who has already contributed to the wiki but is not a committer and try to 'fast-track' getting those people's CLAs in and votes started. Lastly, I have a question. Do we need to go back and get the previous contributions resubmitted? I assume that we will. Jay Kevan Miller wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Hey Kevan, Thanks for bringing this up. Potential IP issues with our documentation is a reality and I agree we need a process for controlling contributions. Some comments inline Kevan Miller wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. Agreed, ICLA and vote should be a must but, how do we deal current contributors that are not so actively involved in the mailing lists? For example, there are contributors that are working (mostly off line) on translating content. How would we incorporate such translated content? I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. yup, good reminder. I would like to see more feedback on the doc updates as well. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. I think you could do some wiki formatting in the JIRA itself but extracting the doc from the JIRA may be unpractical. Plain text files and images attached may work as long as the text file is using the wiki markup and following the [Tips for writing and formatting documentation|http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo/tips-for-writing-and-formatting-documentation.html] Maybe we can use a staging space (sorta like the wiki sandbox) to develop the content there, then open a JIRA pointing to that page and specific version in the staging wiki space. The JIRA could include an abstract and where it should be placed within the official doc. In either case, we should always check the content for technical accuracy, relevance and formatting as well before incorporating it into the doc. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I understand the point, this may help us get started but it will chase us down the road. I'm certainly not in favor of having multiple levels of Geronimo committers. We need to figure out another way to do this; otherwise becoming a contributor could potentially be a dead-end towards committership. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. How would this work for existing contributors? 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. Again, the contributor vs committer thingy doesn't look quite right to me. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. So, are we talking of restricting a particular space or all GMOx...? We should at least leave the wiki sandbox (GMOxSBOX) out of this restriction This is not a trivial thing, there are currently a number of non-committers contributing to the documentation. I think we would do more harm than good if we suddenly stop them from contributing content. Again, I see the issue and agree we need to act rather sooner than later, but before we pull down the
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Are we breaking new ground here? I'd suspect that the other projects that are using the Wiki may have already discussed this and may have a resolution. Thanks to Miller, Miller and Miller for their awareness of the legal ramifications; I missed it and its a good point. On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
I agree that we definitely need to address IP issues around documentation/the wiki... but isn't there any way to accomplish this without adding barriers to users editing content? Can we do something like wikipedia does for editing content where there is a checkbox or a notice or something saying You agree to license your contributions under the Apache Software License (similar to how JIRA is currently) -- Erik B. Craig On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
I'd be more inclined to do something akin to what Erik suggested. I'm concerned that the process to gain access to editing the wiki would deter many of the people that add a page here and there that describes something they've done. A number of our contributions come from people who are just making a one time edit. I can't imagine many of them would go through the effort to gain contributor access to add a single page. On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Erik B. Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that we definitely need to address IP issues around documentation/the wiki... but isn't there any way to accomplish this without adding barriers to users editing content? Can we do something like wikipedia does for editing content where there is a checkbox or a notice or something saying You agree to license your contributions under the Apache Software License (similar to how JIRA is currently) -- Erik B. Craig On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan -- ~Jason Warner
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Rereading this again, I think I might have misinterpreted a bit. To make sure I understand it now, a user could contribute a single page by providing a patch in a jira without needing to gain contributor status? On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Jason Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be more inclined to do something akin to what Erik suggested. I'm concerned that the process to gain access to editing the wiki would deter many of the people that add a page here and there that describes something they've done. A number of our contributions come from people who are just making a one time edit. I can't imagine many of them would go through the effort to gain contributor access to add a single page. On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Erik B. Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that we definitely need to address IP issues around documentation/the wiki... but isn't there any way to accomplish this without adding barriers to users editing content? Can we do something like wikipedia does for editing content where there is a checkbox or a notice or something saying You agree to license your contributions under the Apache Software License (similar to how JIRA is currently) -- Erik B. Craig On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan -- ~Jason Warner -- ~Jason Warner
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
As one of the non-committers who has been active contributing to the Geronimo Wiki, I echo the preference for a lightweight process. I prefer the method whereby you can check a box Grant license to ASF as you do with JIRA contributions. However barring this, the proposed process looks acceptable to me. Kevan Miller wrote: 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. I hope you can add me to the first vote. I have continuing interest in contributing to the Wiki. -- Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Erik B. Craig wrote: I agree that we definitely need to address IP issues around documentation/the wiki... but isn't there any way to accomplish this without adding barriers to users editing content? Can we do something like wikipedia does for editing content where there is a checkbox or a notice or something saying You agree to license your contributions under the Apache Software License (similar to how JIRA is currently) We mention on the wiki front page, see second paragraph on http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo ...Contributions to this wiki are managed the same way as code contributions, that means all content on this site (see Geronimo cwiki documentation architecture for a list of conforming spaces) is Apache Software Foundation copyrighted and available under the Apache License... In addition, every single page autoexported as HTML (the version we should all consume) has the following footer Copyright © 2003-2008, The Apache Software Foundation But I also understand we want something more than just a disclaimer, some additional step requiring a specific user action. An ICLA would do the trick, file it once and is good for all your contributions. The process for filing it and getting the appropriate access rights is the tricky one. Cheers! Hernan -- Erik B. Craig On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, To properly protect the IP rights of our Wiki-based documentation, we need to stop allowing unrestricted write access to our Wiki. Wiki contributors should be required to have an ICLA on file with the ASF. I also think that we need to hold a PMC vote before granting this access. I'll also take this opportunity to remind the community that Wiki updates are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. These updates need to be reviewed by the community, just like all code updates. IMO, we don't want this to be a heavy-weight process. We don't want there to be a significant hurdle to contributing documentation. For code updates, patch files attached to Jira's with the Grant license to ASF button checked takes care of these IP concerns. To my knowledge, there's no patch file equivalent for updates to a Wiki. We could require that documentation updates be contributed in the form of simple ascii text files that are attached to a Jira. This would address our IP concerns, but is not ideal IMO. To keep this as light-weight as possible, I propose we formalize the concept of contributor. A contributor would have write access to our Wiki documentation as well as the ability to assign Jira's to him/herself. I think the process would go something like this... 0. Reset write access to our wiki to be only the current set of committers on the project. 1. New documentation contributions from non-committers/contributors must be submitted via a Jira, with the Grant License to the ASF box checked. This is just like any code/bug-fix submission. 2. Once a new participant has expressed interest in contributing to the project and/or has contributed documentation or bug fixes, a PMC vote will be called to grant the new participant contributor rights. As all PMC votes, this vote is a majority vote, require a minimum of 3 +1 votes, and will last for a minimum of 72 hours. 3. Once a vote has passed, the participant will be invited to join the project as a 'contributor'. Assuming he/she accepts, the participant must then submit an ICLA to the ASF. Once the ICLA is on file, the new 'contributor' will give given write access to our wiki and the ability to assign Jira's. 4. The new contributor will be announced to the community. I've grouped Jira rights with wiki rights in the above. This is not strictly necessary, but grouping the two seems like a reasonable step. This is my first pass at a proposal. We can tweak this process in a number of ways and there are alternatives. I think the hard requirements are 1) the PMC must vote and 2) an ICLA must be filed with the ASF. Until we resolve this issue, we need to restrict Wiki write access to be the current set of Geronimo committers. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote: Erik B. Craig wrote: I agree that we definitely need to address IP issues around documentation/the wiki... but isn't there any way to accomplish this without adding barriers to users editing content? Can we do something like wikipedia does for editing content where there is a checkbox or a notice or something saying You agree to license your contributions under the Apache Software License (similar to how JIRA is currently) We mention on the wiki front page, see second paragraph on http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo ...Contributions to this wiki are managed the same way as code contributions, that means all content on this site (see Geronimo cwiki documentation architecture for a list of conforming spaces) is Apache Software Foundation copyrighted and available under the Apache License... In addition, every single page autoexported as HTML (the version we should all consume) has the following footer Copyright © 2003-2008, The Apache Software Foundation But I also understand we want something more than just a disclaimer, some additional step requiring a specific user action. An ICLA would do the trick, file it once and is good for all your contributions. The process for filing it and getting the appropriate access rights is the tricky one. So, is a check box technically feasible? This might be an acceptable alternative. Probably still need to limit write access -- otherwise, we're open to hacks... But might not require a vote -- just a request to contribute. --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting write access to our Wiki
Kevan Miller wrote: On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote: Erik B. Craig wrote: I agree that we definitely need to address IP issues around documentation/the wiki... but isn't there any way to accomplish this without adding barriers to users editing content? Can we do something like wikipedia does for editing content where there is a checkbox or a notice or something saying You agree to license your contributions under the Apache Software License (similar to how JIRA is currently) We mention on the wiki front page, see second paragraph on http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo ...Contributions to this wiki are managed the same way as code contributions, that means all content on this site (see Geronimo cwiki documentation architecture for a list of conforming spaces) is Apache Software Foundation copyrighted and available under the Apache License... In addition, every single page autoexported as HTML (the version we should all consume) has the following footer Copyright © 2003-2008, The Apache Software Foundation But I also understand we want something more than just a disclaimer, some additional step requiring a specific user action. An ICLA would do the trick, file it once and is good for all your contributions. The process for filing it and getting the appropriate access rights is the tricky one. So, is a check box technically feasible? This might be an acceptable I know customization is possible but I don't know how to do it. So far I haven't found a way to customize Confluence native templates to include a checkbox before saving a page. Does anybody knows how to do this? Cheers! Hernan alternative. Probably still need to limit write access -- otherwise, we're open to hacks... But might not require a vote -- just a request to contribute. --kevan
