Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 2/4/13, janI  wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means that
> it has entered maintenance mode.
>
> There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
> can find a supported solution.
>
> Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have discussed
> earlier:
> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
> decision.

+1

>I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
> information (e.g. build instructions)
> - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
>   A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
> pages, its hard to find the correct info.
>   If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to change
> search to excluded these

Any help page on how to do this, do we have any custom alerts or label?
{{Documentation/Caution| Outdated}}
ie. http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Using_Cpp_with_the_OOo_SDK#See_also

> - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
>   Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory usage
> seems very random.

Is a category already being used for this (it would be logical
outdated would be one) but is there any subcategories for example.
Outdated/Documentation Outdated/Development

>
> We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
> gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
> course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
>
> "Teams
> This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
> OpenOfficefor
> actual information."
>
> on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
>
> Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small team.
> And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
> feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers to
> guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
>
> I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
>
> Rgds
> jan I.
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[janI]

On 4 February 2013 15:00, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:

> On 2/4/13, janI  wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means
> that
> > it has entered maintenance mode.
> >
> > There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
> > can find a supported solution.
> >
> > Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have
> discussed
> > earlier:
> > - Move cwiki to mwiki.
> >this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
> > decision.
>
> +1
>
> >I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
> > information (e.g. build instructions)
> > - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
> >   A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
> > pages, its hard to find the correct info.
> >   If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to
> change
> > search to excluded these
>
> Any help page on how to do this, do we have any custom alerts or label?
> {{Documentation/Caution| Outdated}}
> ie. http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Using_Cpp_with_the_OOo_SDK#See_also
>
I am not sure what you mean by custom alerts or label. Adding the catagory
is quite simple and documented. I have seen some pages use a symbol for
outdated, but most pages simple has a text like "this page is outdated,
please refer to "


>
> > - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
> >   Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory
> usage
> > seems very random.
>
> Is a category already being used for this (it would be logical
> outdated would be one) but is there any subcategories for example.
> Outdated/Documentation Outdated/Development
>
No a lot of pages do not have a category at all, and many are also not
subpages but main pages. At lot of these pages to not seem outdated, but
merely misplaced.


>
> >
> > We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
> > gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
> > course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
> >
> > "Teams
> > This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
> > OpenOfficefor
> > actual information."
> >
> > on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
> >
> > Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small
> team.
> > And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
> > feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers
> to
> > guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
> >
> > I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
> >
> > Rgds
> > jan I.
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> http://es.openoffice.org
>

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Jani,

Thanks for the MWiki work. I think that there are several discussions needed in 
order to start the process of converting CWiki to MWiki and "modernize" MWiki.

Forgive me if I am ignorant of work that may be done already.

Discussions could be:

1. Agreement on the Taxonomy of Categories.

2. Reorganize the main MWiki page.

3. Retirement strategy with redirects from important old pages that are 
external link targets.

4. CWiki may serve a purpose as an idea scratch pad as it is very easy to use 
(at least for me). Limit the migration away from it to important documentation 
like build instructions. The separation may prove useful.

BTW - Have we solved the registration problem for MWiki?

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means that
> it has entered maintenance mode.
> 
> There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
> can find a supported solution.
> 
> Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have discussed
> earlier:
> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>   this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
> decision.
>   I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
> information (e.g. build instructions)
> - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
>  A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
> pages, its hard to find the correct info.
>  If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to change
> search to excluded these
> - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
>  Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory usage
> seems very random.
> 
> We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
> gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
> course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
> 
> "Teams
> This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
> OpenOfficefor
> actual information."
> 
> on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
> 
> Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small team.
> And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
> feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers to
> guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
> 
> I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
> 
> Rgds
> jan I.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[janI]

On 4 February 2013 15:40, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi Jani,
>
> Thanks for the MWiki work. I think that there are several discussions
> needed in order to start the process of converting CWiki to MWiki and
> "modernize" MWiki.
>
> Forgive me if I am ignorant of work that may be done already.
>
> Discussions could be:
>
> 1. Agreement on the Taxonomy of Categories.
>
> 2. Reorganize the main MWiki page.
>
> 3. Retirement strategy with redirects from important old pages that are
> external link targets.
>
> 4. CWiki may serve a purpose as an idea scratch pad as it is very easy to
> use (at least for me). Limit the migration away from it to important
> documentation like build instructions. The separation may prove useful.
>

Thx. for outlining a set of discussions, I highly agree this agenda.

Rgds 4) Personally I have no problem with 2 wikis that have a clear
seperation, what I find irritating is that the same type of information is
in both wikis.


> BTW - Have we solved the registration problem for MWiki?
>

I am not sure what you mean ? If it is "create account" it should be solved
(it took a while before I got aware of the problem).


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means
> that
> > it has entered maintenance mode.
> >
> > There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
> > can find a supported solution.
> >
> > Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have
> discussed
> > earlier:
> > - Move cwiki to mwiki.
> >   this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
> > decision.
> >   I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
> > information (e.g. build instructions)
> > - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
> >  A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
> > pages, its hard to find the correct info.
> >  If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to
> change
> > search to excluded these
> > - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
> >  Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory
> usage
> > seems very random.
> >
> > We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
> > gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
> > course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
> >
> > "Teams
> > This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
> > OpenOfficefor
> > actual information."
> >
> > on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
> >
> > Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small
> team.
> > And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
> > feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers
> to
> > guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
> >
> > I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
> >
> > Rgds
> > jan I.
>

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Regina Henschel]

Hi Jan,

janI schrieb:

Hi.

We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means that
it has entered maintenance mode.


Great!



There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
can find a supported solution.

Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have discussed
earlier:
- Move cwiki to mwiki.
this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
decision.
I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
information (e.g. build instructions)


I too. And I do not like cwiki at all.


- Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
   A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
pages, its hard to find the correct info.


I think, that using the database directly it should be possible to 
search for pages, that are not changed for the last two years. Those are 
surely outdated or at least need a review.




   If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to change
search to excluded these


Coming from OOo does not mean, that they are no longer useful. But it 
needs a lot of work to look at every page. For example the Calc function 
reference is old, but not outdated. Perhaps we can use a category 
"Attic" for pages which are not changed recently and for which no one 
has looked, whether they are outdated. And the already existing category 
"outdated" for those pages, that are really outdated. Such "Attic"-pages 
need a header to warn the visitors, because often pages are found by a 
search engine.


Really outdated pages should be get a warning and date, when it was 
decided, that it is outdated. If available a link to an actual page 
should be added.


With such distinction it would be clear, that every page with is neither 
"outdated" nor "Attic" is actual and maintained.


And it would be possible to move pages with no change in the last two 
years to such "Attic" in the future too.


I would not use something like "need review" for it, because that might 
be needed for actual pages, which are newly created.




- Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
   Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory usage
seems very random.


Yes. There are between 300 and 600 categories.
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Categories
gives me two pages with 300 items.

I think we need an overview of the categories with two sections. The 
first section has a hierarchy of the general categories as tree and the 
second section has an alphabetic list of languages. Sub-categories of 
language categories should not be shown in such index. But it is the 
responsibility of the native language community to organize their native 
language pages.


Would it be possible to add a link to such an index and a help text on 
the frame page, that is shown in edit-mode?




We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:

"Teams
This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
OpenOfficefor
actual information."

on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.


That was me, I had not much time when I changed it. But the start page 
should of cause be cleaned up.





Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small team.
And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers to
guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.


That will be difficult, because here are not so many "old" volunteers.



I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.


Thanks Jan. You are doing a great job.

Kind regards
Regina

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means that
> it has entered maintenance mode.
>
> There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
> can find a supported solution.
>
> Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have discussed
> earlier:
> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
> decision.
>I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
> information (e.g. build instructions)
> - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
>   A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
> pages, its hard to find the correct info.
>   If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to change
> search to excluded these
> - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
>   Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory usage
> seems very random.
>

I agree with your appraisal of the current problems.   The tricky part
of this problem is that we have a small number of old pages that are
useful, and a larger numbers that are not really useful anymore.  Even
if we had volunteers lined up to tag the outdated ones this still
leaves the wiki content in a poor state.  IMHO it is more than just
improving things at the page level.  It is the structure as well.  And
this goes across the wiki and the website, since they are interlinked.

One approache, a bold one, that we might consider:

Freeze the old wiki and website and start fresh with a new one. Design
a new website and wiki, mapping out in advance the visual design,
branding, the templates, the taxonomies, etc.  Do it at a temporary
URL at first.  Migrate valuable old content into the new structure.
We could have a data-driven approach to prioritize what to migrate,
based on a year's worth of data on what current website and wiki pages
are consulted most often.

This slays all the dragons at once:   migrate CWiki to MWiki, combine
openoffice.apache.org content into openoffice.org, etc.  We can still
keep the old stuff, but maybe in a new subdomain, like
www.legacy.openoffice.org or wiki.legacy.openoffice.org.

We can also at the same time make a more uniform attempt at enabling
website translation.

-Rob

> We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
> gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
> course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
>
> "Teams
> This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
> OpenOfficefor
> actual information."
>
> on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
>
> Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small team.
> And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
> feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers to
> guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
>
> I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
>
> Rgds
> jan I.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Kay Schenk]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi Jani,
>
> Thanks for the MWiki work. I think that there are several discussions
> needed in order to start the process of converting CWiki to MWiki and
> "modernize" MWiki.
>
> Forgive me if I am ignorant of work that may be done already.
>
> Discussions could be:
>
> 1. Agreement on the Taxonomy of Categories.
>
> 2. Reorganize the main MWiki page.
>
> 3. Retirement strategy with redirects from important old pages that are
> external link targets.
>
> 4. CWiki may serve a purpose as an idea scratch pad as it is very easy to
> use (at least for me). Limit the migration away from it to important
> documentation like build instructions. The separation may prove useful.
>

yes...I too find cwiki very quick and easy to use as a  "scratch pad" .
And, I like the way it automatically provides an outline structure for
additions, etc. This is one thing I do not like about Mwiki at all. Mwiki
provides categories, which I confess I don't really understand at all (more
education needed), but this requires more effort for input, etc.

I think before we migrate our cwiki information to Mwiki we need to spend a
bit more time in assessing the ease of using Mwiki for what we do on cwiki.
I can see a continued use for both in some respects. What I don't like now
is the duplication, esp in the build instructions, that are on both
locations. If we want to continue to use both for whatever reason, we
should definitely define the purposes of each.

The problems with actually deleting old Mwiki pages is a concern as well.


> BTW - Have we solved the registration problem for MWiki?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means
> that
> > it has entered maintenance mode.
> >
> > There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
> > can find a supported solution.
> >
> > Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have
> discussed
> > earlier:
> > - Move cwiki to mwiki.
> >   this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
> > decision.
> >   I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
> > information (e.g. build instructions)
> > - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
> >  A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
> > pages, its hard to find the correct info.
> >  If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to
> change
> > search to excluded these
> > - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
> >  Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory
> usage
> > seems very random.
> >
> > We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
> > gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
> > course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
> >
> > "Teams
> > This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
> > OpenOfficefor
> > actual information."
> >
> > on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
> >
> > Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small
> team.
> > And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
> > feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers
> to
> > guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
> >
> > I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
> >
> > Rgds
> > jan I.
>



-- 

MzK

"A great deal of talent is lost to the world
  for want of a little courage."
 -- Sydney Smith

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 2/4/13, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means
>> that
>> it has entered maintenance mode.
>>
>> There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
>> can find a supported solution.
>>
>> Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have
>> discussed
>> earlier:
>> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>>this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
>> decision.
>>I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
>> information (e.g. build instructions)
>> - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
>>   A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
>> pages, its hard to find the correct info.
>>   If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to
>> change
>> search to excluded these
>> - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
>>   Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory
>> usage
>> seems very random.
>>
>
> I agree with your appraisal of the current problems.   The tricky part
> of this problem is that we have a small number of old pages that are
> useful, and a larger numbers that are not really useful anymore.  Even

I dobt this is true. There is a lot of content that iss very useful,
AOO in its core is not really changed and most of the content still
applies. So I would say that almost 60% of the wiki info still applies
now.

> if we had volunteers lined up to tag the outdated ones this still
> leaves the wiki content in a poor state.  IMHO it is more than just
> improving things at the page level.  It is the structure as well.  And
> this goes across the wiki and the website, since they are interlinked.
>
> One approache, a bold one, that we might consider:
>
> Freeze the old wiki and website and start fresh with a new one. Design
> a new website and wiki, mapping out in advance the visual design,
> branding, the templates, the taxonomies, etc.  Do it at a temporary
> URL at first.  Migrate valuable old content into the new structure.
> We could have a data-driven approach to prioritize what to migrate,
> based on a year's worth of data on what current website and wiki pages
> are consulted most often.
>
> This slays all the dragons at once:   migrate CWiki to MWiki, combine
> openoffice.apache.org content into openoffice.org, etc.  We can still
> keep the old stuff, but maybe in a new subdomain, like
> www.legacy.openoffice.org or wiki.legacy.openoffice.org.
>
> We can also at the same time make a more uniform attempt at enabling
> website translation.
>
> -Rob
>
>> We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
>> gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
>> course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
>>
>> "Teams
>> This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
>> OpenOfficefor
>> actual information."
>>
>> on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
>>
>> Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small
>> team.
>> And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
>> feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers
>> to
>> guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
>>
>> I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
>>
>> Rgds
>> jan I.
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
> On 2/4/13, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means
>>> that
>>> it has entered maintenance mode.
>>>
>>> There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
>>> can find a supported solution.
>>>
>>> Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have
>>> discussed
>>> earlier:
>>> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>>>this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
>>> decision.
>>>I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
>>> information (e.g. build instructions)
>>> - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
>>>   A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
>>> pages, its hard to find the correct info.
>>>   If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to
>>> change
>>> search to excluded these
>>> - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
>>>   Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory
>>> usage
>>> seems very random.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with your appraisal of the current problems.   The tricky part
>> of this problem is that we have a small number of old pages that are
>> useful, and a larger numbers that are not really useful anymore.  Even
>
> I dobt this is true. There is a lot of content that iss very useful,
> AOO in its core is not really changed and most of the content still
> applies. So I would say that almost 60% of the wiki info still applies
> now.
>

I was talking about the wiki + website.  There is a lot there about
old project organizational structures that are not relevant any more.
And even if 60% is still valid, that is still an enormous number of
pages that are not relevant any more.  What can we do to increase the
signal/noise ratio.

Here is a challenge for anyone:  Starting from the home page, what is
the minimum number of clicks you can make before you come to a page
that is full of outdated, wrong information?

I can see dozens of wrong pages that are two clicks away from the home page.

-Rob




>> if we had volunteers lined up to tag the outdated ones this still
>> leaves the wiki content in a poor state.  IMHO it is more than just
>> improving things at the page level.  It is the structure as well.  And
>> this goes across the wiki and the website, since they are interlinked.
>>
>> One approache, a bold one, that we might consider:
>>
>> Freeze the old wiki and website and start fresh with a new one. Design
>> a new website and wiki, mapping out in advance the visual design,
>> branding, the templates, the taxonomies, etc.  Do it at a temporary
>> URL at first.  Migrate valuable old content into the new structure.
>> We could have a data-driven approach to prioritize what to migrate,
>> based on a year's worth of data on what current website and wiki pages
>> are consulted most often.
>>
>> This slays all the dragons at once:   migrate CWiki to MWiki, combine
>> openoffice.apache.org content into openoffice.org, etc.  We can still
>> keep the old stuff, but maybe in a new subdomain, like
>> www.legacy.openoffice.org or wiki.legacy.openoffice.org.
>>
>> We can also at the same time make a more uniform attempt at enabling
>> website translation.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
>>> gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
>>> course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
>>>
>>> "Teams
>>> This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
>>> OpenOfficefor
>>> actual information."
>>>
>>> on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
>>>
>>> Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small
>>> team.
>>> And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
>>> feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers
>>> to
>>> guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
>>>
>>> I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> jan I.
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 2/4/13, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>> On 2/4/13, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:
 Hi.

 We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means
 that
 it has entered maintenance mode.

 There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if
 we
 can find a supported solution.

 Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have
 discussed
 earlier:
 - Move cwiki to mwiki.
this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
 decision.
I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
 information (e.g. build instructions)
 - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
   A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
 pages, its hard to find the correct info.
   If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to
 change
 search to excluded these
 - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
   Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory
 usage
 seems very random.

>>>
>>> I agree with your appraisal of the current problems.   The tricky part
>>> of this problem is that we have a small number of old pages that are
>>> useful, and a larger numbers that are not really useful anymore.  Even
>>
>> I dobt this is true. There is a lot of content that iss very useful,
>> AOO in its core is not really changed and most of the content still
>> applies. So I would say that almost 60% of the wiki info still applies
>> now.
>>
>
> I was talking about the wiki + website.  There is a lot there about
> old project organizational structures that are not relevant any more.
> And even if 60% is still valid, that is still an enormous number of
> pages that are not relevant any more.  What can we do to increase the
> signal/noise ratio.
>
> Here is a challenge for anyone:  Starting from the home page, what is
> the minimum number of clicks you can make before you come to a page
> that is full of outdated, wrong information?
>
> I can see dozens of wrong pages that are two clicks away from the home
> page.
>
> -Rob

Then we should update the homepage.

>
>
>
>
>>> if we had volunteers lined up to tag the outdated ones this still
>>> leaves the wiki content in a poor state.  IMHO it is more than just
>>> improving things at the page level.  It is the structure as well.  And
>>> this goes across the wiki and the website, since they are interlinked.
>>>
>>> One approache, a bold one, that we might consider:
>>>
>>> Freeze the old wiki and website and start fresh with a new one. Design
>>> a new website and wiki, mapping out in advance the visual design,
>>> branding, the templates, the taxonomies, etc.  Do it at a temporary
>>> URL at first.  Migrate valuable old content into the new structure.
>>> We could have a data-driven approach to prioritize what to migrate,
>>> based on a year's worth of data on what current website and wiki pages
>>> are consulted most often.
>>>
>>> This slays all the dragons at once:   migrate CWiki to MWiki, combine
>>> openoffice.apache.org content into openoffice.org, etc.  We can still
>>> keep the old stuff, but maybe in a new subdomain, like
>>> www.legacy.openoffice.org or wiki.legacy.openoffice.org.
>>>
>>> We can also at the same time make a more uniform attempt at enabling
>>> website translation.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
 We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
 gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless
 of
 course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:

 "Teams
 This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
 OpenOfficefor
 actual information."

 on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.

 Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small
 team.
 And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
 feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers
 to
 guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.

 I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.

 Rgds
 jan I.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexandro Colorado
>> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
>> http://es.openoffice.org
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
> Thanks for the MWiki work. I think that there are several discussions needed 
> in order to start the process of converting CWiki to MWiki and "modernize" 
> MWiki.
>
> Forgive me if I am ignorant of work that may be done already.
>
> Discussions could be:
>
> 1. Agreement on the Taxonomy of Categories.
>
> 2. Reorganize the main MWiki page.
>
> 3. Retirement strategy with redirects from important old pages that are 
> external link targets.
>

And we do have several of these, for example the bounce message we use
for emails to @openoffice.org addresses refers to a CWiki page.  A few
blog posts have referenced CWiki pages, as well.  Unfortunately
identifying these (except for the well-known ones) will be hard, since
we don't have logs or Google Analytics for CWiki. But Infra might have
access to useful data here.

> 4. CWiki may serve a purpose as an idea scratch pad as it is very easy to use 
> (at least for me). Limit the migration away from it to important 
> documentation like build instructions. The separation may prove useful.
>

It might parallel the project-volunteer view of openoffice.apache.org
versus user-view of www.openoffice.org.  But that could also be done
with distinct areas on a single wiki.

> BTW - Have we solved the registration problem for MWiki?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:51 AM, janI  wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means that
>> it has entered maintenance mode.
>>
>> There is one outstanding bugzilla issue, which will be implemented if we
>> can find a supported solution.
>>
>> Now would be a good time to think about the other things we have discussed
>> earlier:
>> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>>   this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
>> decision.
>>   I for one find it very confusing to look in 2 wikis for the same
>> information (e.g. build instructions)
>> - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
>>  A lot of the information in wiki is outdated and superseeded by new
>> pages, its hard to find the correct info.
>>  If outpdated paged had the category "outdated" it would be easy to change
>> search to excluded these
>> - Put categories on all pages, and structure the pages
>>  Due to the very limited maintenance the page structure and catagory usage
>> seems very random.
>>
>> We can hopefully expect high traffic volume when we release 4.0, which
>> gives a natural timelimit when the wiki should be streamlined. Unless of
>> course, the community does not find it embarrasing to have text like:
>>
>> "Teams
>> This section is partly outdated. Visit Apache
>> OpenOfficefor
>> actual information."
>>
>> on the front page, highlighting the priority of maintaining the wiki.
>>
>> Doing the work needed is too much for one person, it requires a small team.
>> And based on my experience touching information can generate a lot of
>> feelings, so the team should preferable contain enough "old" volunteers to
>> guarantee that the changes are done historically correct.
>>
>> I will keep doing the running maintenance of the wiki2 server.
>>
>> Rgds
>> jan I.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 04/02/2013 janI wrote:

We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means that
it has entered maintenance mode.


Thanks a lot for your efforts! Getting full control over the wiki again 
is a milestone for this project.



- Move cwiki to mwiki.
this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
decision.


I agree, we can progressively move stuff by turning pages into redirects 
to the MWiki. This may take time but could be the less problematic way 
(for example, I had created the FOSDEM pages on the cwiki but they 
should be moved to the mwiki since other FOSDEM pages are archived 
there). A drastic redirect could confuse people who are actively working 
on some pages, like the logo discussions.


Is there some filter to allow smooth translation of cwiki syntax?

And note, not to miss anything we actually have two cwikis:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOODEV
but the former is the only one with some meaningful content, the second 
is almost empty.



- Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page


I use this:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Features&diff=214742&oldid=189126
which produces a clear "Outdated" notice and categorizes the page 
accordingly. If there are better ways, let me know.


I tend to do that on all pages I stumble upon that are clearly outdated.

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 janI wrote:
>>
>> We have just completed the last optimization of wiki.o.o, which means that
>> it has entered maintenance mode.
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your efforts! Getting full control over the wiki again is a
> milestone for this project.
>
>
>> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>> this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
>> decision.
>
>
> I agree, we can progressively move stuff by turning pages into redirects to
> the MWiki. This may take time but could be the less problematic way (for
> example, I had created the FOSDEM pages on the cwiki but they should be
> moved to the mwiki since other FOSDEM pages are archived there). A drastic
> redirect could confuse people who are actively working on some pages, like
> the logo discussions.
>
> Is there some filter to allow smooth translation of cwiki syntax?
>
> And note, not to miss anything we actually have two cwikis:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOODEV
> but the former is the only one with some meaningful content, the second is
> almost empty.
>
>
>> - Mark outdated paged with category outdated, and symbol on page
>
>
> I use this:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Features&diff=214742&oldid=189126
> which produces a clear "Outdated" notice and categorizes the page
> accordingly. If there are better ways, let me know.
>
> I tend to do that on all pages I stumble upon that are clearly outdated.
>

There are two different concepts to think about:

1) This page is out of date -- please help update me.

2) This page is out of date -- we keep it here for historical reference only

Maybe we need two different tags?

-Rob

> Regards,
>   Andrea.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Andrea Pescetti]

Rob Weir wrote:

... Mark outdated pages

There are two different concepts to think about:
1) This page is out of date -- please help update me.
2) This page is out of date -- we keep it here for historical reference only
Maybe we need two different tags?


Good distinction. Yes, we will probably need to differentiate between 
"Outdated" and "Archived" pages, even though at times the distinction 
could be unclear, like

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Features
which has nothing to do with the current feature planning but is a 
natural landing page for users who look for OpenOffice features (so 
either it is marked "Outdated" with plans to merge the feature planning 
there, or "Archived" and kept as it is, maybe with a link to the current 
feature planning).


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[David Gerard]

On 8 February 2013 21:52, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

>> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
>> this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
>> decision.

> I agree, we can progressively move stuff by turning pages into redirects to
> the MWiki. This may take time but could be the less problematic way (for
> example, I had created the FOSDEM pages on the cwiki but they should be
> moved to the mwiki since other FOSDEM pages are archived there). A drastic
> redirect could confuse people who are actively working on some pages, like
> the logo discussions.
> Is there some filter to allow smooth translation of cwiki syntax?


There appear to be no commonly-available filters to move pages in bulk
from Confluence to MediaWiki, preserving links and formatting.

The general problem is that anyone who moves a wiki from one engine to
another does the job precisely once, so there's no-one who really
maintains a good converter script, and the knowledge doesn't
accumulate (as it does in an ongoing open-source project).

That said, there are people who do want to move from Confluence to
MediaWiki and end up doing it by a quick hack without the knowledge
accumulating. So if you do go for an automated method and come up with
a script, please do put the details and script up on
http://mediawiki.org , and others with the same problem in the future
will be grateful.


- d.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[janI]

When I look at the preceding mail in this thread, I see a lot of god
suggestionsbut it seems its all still open, or did I miss a point.

Regarding streamlining Mwiki,
   - there are no real proposals to reduce the number of catagories
   - it seems that everybody agrees on marking old pages (with "outdate" or
"needs update" marker), however the definition of these pages seems to be a
discussion point.

Regarding moving cwiki to wiki.
   - There seemed to be general consensus to move the pages, however there
seems to be a discussion whether to keep Cwiki as "scratch paper".
   - It is also remarkable (at least to me), that there seems to be a big
difference in saying and doingmeaning that our cwiki still get new
pages, even from people who I understood supported a move.

   - For the actual transfer, there seems to several options, from the most
radical (and interesting):  Freeze, build a new wiki (and web), to more or
less do nothing.

I have also noted, that no one have opted to help with this undertaking.

So I assume that, due to the fact that its hard to impossible to see what
to do and be within consensus, it is simpler to do nothing ?

Rgds
Jan I.

Ps. being a developer I do not see the filter (cwiki -> mwiki) as a major
challenge, compared with changing the will/habit of people :-)


On 9 February 2013 19:16, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 8 February 2013 21:52, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>
> >> - Move cwiki to mwiki.
> >> this has been discussed/decided earlier, but might need a positive
> >> decision.
>
> > I agree, we can progressively move stuff by turning pages into redirects
> to
> > the MWiki. This may take time but could be the less problematic way (for
> > example, I had created the FOSDEM pages on the cwiki but they should be
> > moved to the mwiki since other FOSDEM pages are archived there). A
> drastic
> > redirect could confuse people who are actively working on some pages,
> like
> > the logo discussions.
> > Is there some filter to allow smooth translation of cwiki syntax?
>
>
> There appear to be no commonly-available filters to move pages in bulk
> from Confluence to MediaWiki, preserving links and formatting.
>
> The general problem is that anyone who moves a wiki from one engine to
> another does the job precisely once, so there's no-one who really
> maintains a good converter script, and the knowledge doesn't
> accumulate (as it does in an ongoing open-source project).
>
> That said, there are people who do want to move from Confluence to
> MediaWiki and end up doing it by a quick hack without the knowledge
> accumulating. So if you do go for an automated method and come up with
> a script, please do put the details and script up on
> http://mediawiki.org , and others with the same problem in the future
> will be grateful.
>
>
> - d.
>

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 12/02/2013 janI wrote:

Regarding moving cwiki to wiki.
- There seemed to be general consensus to move the pages, however there
seems to be a discussion whether to keep Cwiki as "scratch paper".
- It is also remarkable (at least to me), that there seems to be a big
difference in saying and doingmeaning that our cwiki still get new
pages, even from people who I understood supported a move.


I've now migrated the FOSDEM 2013 pages as promised. Now they live under
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Conferences/FOSDEM/2013
and the cwiki pages have been replaced with a notice redirecting users 
to the mwiki.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Mwiki is moved into maintenance mode.

[Kay Schenk]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> On 12/02/2013 janI wrote:
>
>> Regarding moving cwiki to wiki.
>> - There seemed to be general consensus to move the pages, however
>> there
>> seems to be a discussion whether to keep Cwiki as "scratch paper".
>> - It is also remarkable (at least to me), that there seems to be a big
>> difference in saying and doingmeaning that our cwiki still get new
>> pages, even from people who I understood supported a move.
>>
>
> I've now migrated the FOSDEM 2013 pages as promised. Now they live under
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Conferences/FOSDEM/2013
> and the cwiki pages have been replaced with a notice redirecting users to
> the mwiki.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>

Thanks Andrea.

-- 

MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."