Moin question
One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete old users. I would like permission from both teams to do delete all users who A) aren't in the edit group B) aren't watching any pages Presently there's 9,900 accounts on there. Only 600 of which are actually in the edit group. Since having an account, without edit or watching abilities is basically useless I'd like to just get rid of those accounts. Nothing would prevent those people from signing up again if they chose to do so. This is kind of a drastic measure, I realize, but I think its needed. Thoughts? -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete > old users. I would like permission from both teams to do delete all > users who > > A) aren't in the edit group > B) aren't watching any pages > > Presently there's 9,900 accounts on there. Only 600 of which are > actually in the edit group. Since having an account, without edit or > watching abilities is basically useless I'd like to just get rid of > those accounts. Nothing would prevent those people from signing up > again if they chose to do so. > > This is kind of a drastic measure, I realize, but I think its needed. > > Thoughts? I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of pages. -sv ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete > old users. I would like permission from both teams to do delete all > users who > > A) aren't in the edit group > B) aren't watching any pages > > Presently there's 9,900 accounts on there. Only 600 of which are > actually in the edit group. Since having an account, without edit or > watching abilities is basically useless I'd like to just get rid of > those accounts. Nothing would prevent those people from signing up > again if they chose to do so. > > This is kind of a drastic measure, I realize, but I think its needed. Thoughts are: * When we move to the click-through CLA, would we be able to force the 9300 users to click-through? * Would we want to? That would encourage people to agree to something without knowing about it. * So, if we are never going to push a click-through on those accounts, they will have to be re-created anyway for a user to actually gain edit privs. * However, many people probably signed up thinking they could edit, then learned they couldn't. * People might be pissed if they got vaporized without some word about it. Therefore 1. Send an announcement (f-announce-l) that we are doing an account audit and cleaning: * All account without watches and/or edit privs will be removed * The UserName shall be purged, so it is available again later * Link to page with more explanation. 2. Can we post for ... 24 hours? 48 hours? a short announcement everywhere on the Wiki? Change the theme or something so there is a notice that points to a page explaining the above. Otherwise, sounds like a wise idea to me. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 // signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of > pages. Really? What sets? I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't covered by the CLA. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 // signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
Hi! Mike McGrath schrieb: > One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete > old users. [...] I'd like to suggest another one: remove old Meeting logs from the wiki and place them somewhere else. Searching for a string in the wiki takes longer and longer every month and often finds a lots of old cruft from old meeting logs. There are so many old summaries and logs in the wiki from differnet groups like Ambassadors, Board, EPEL, FESCo, QA, ..., and it gets more and more every moths for a IMHO small gain. Maybe simply sending the stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the wiki would be more then enough? CU thl ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of > > pages. > > Really? What sets? > > I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't > covered by the CLA. > I think some of the pages that are being used to request changes are like this. For instance: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EditGroupQueue I don't know if there are others pages like this; I do know that CVSSyncNeeded has since been moved into a process based around Bugzilla. -Toshio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of > > pages. > > Really? What sets? > I reserve the right to be wrong :) > I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't > covered by the CLA. I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition? -sv ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
seth vidal wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote: I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of pages. Really? What sets? I reserve the right to be wrong :) I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't covered by the CLA. I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition? -sv And really, the spirit of this is "We're having a problem so we're getting rid of accounts. If you want to, sign back up" So, in theory, we're not preventing anyone from doing anything, at worst they'll just have to sign up again. -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:23 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > >> > >> > >>> I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of > >>> pages. > >>> > >> Really? What sets? > >> > >> > > > > I reserve the right to be wrong :) > > > > > >> I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't > >> covered by the CLA. > >> > > > > I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through > > all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition? > > > > -sv > > > > > And really, the spirit of this is "We're having a problem so we're > getting rid of accounts. If you want to, sign back up" So, in theory, > we're not preventing anyone from doing anything, at worst they'll just > have to sign up again. I agree, though I think Karsten has a point. Let people know it'll happen. -sv ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Maybe simply sending the > stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the wiki > would be more then enough? With a few meetings excepted, that is what we have done in FDSCo from the start. It saves steps and is easy. Sounds like it might be a good policy for all. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 // signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:13 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through > all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition? You are just a few steps ahead, that is all. I got the lawyer-based permission and guidelines for using a click-through CLA for the Wiki. When that is setup, we can stop using EditGroup for the site-wide ACLs. When ... uh, whenever we get to it. I feel guilty every time I see an addition to EditGroup, but this one is a little lower on the current priorities. Still, what needs to be done is: * Click-through page enabled for new users -- must check "Agree" and then submit the form. * Click-through page is (probably) an Include() of the CLA contents itself -- not very proc intensive to do that, since people only see that page when they create their account. * Confirm that ACLs for special areas (Docs/) are working. Anything else? Other than tell people and celebrate? The dividing line between "click-through is OK" and "need to GPG-sign" is if the user has the ability to put content directly into a content storage system from where it goes into a package (then into an ISO.) So, we can leave Docs/Beats/ open to click-through CLAers because that content is edited before going into CVS (and a package), all done by people who have signed the CLA with a GPG key. This is analogous to patches and such that come in via mailing lists and bugzilla. The special locations such as Docs/ are Wiki-based publishing points, so Docs Project contributor guidelines come into play. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 // signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
Karsten Wade schrieb: > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Maybe simply sending the >> stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the wiki >> would be more then enough? > > With a few meetings excepted, that is what we have done in FDSCo from > the start. I started to do it for like that for EPEL one week ago. > It saves steps and is easy. +1 > Sounds like it might be a good policy for all. +1 -- how has the authority to issue such a policy? CU thl ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: Hi! Mike McGrath schrieb: One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete old users. [...] I'd like to suggest another one: remove old Meeting logs from the wiki and place them somewhere else. Searching for a string in the wiki takes longer and longer every month and often finds a lots of old cruft from old meeting logs. I have done a little research on this part and I don't think we'd get much of a gain performance wise. It would clean things up a bit. Interestingly, we have more users (9989) on Moin then we have pages (7214) -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
Mike McGrath schrieb: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Mike McGrath schrieb: >>> One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete >>> old users. [...] >> I'd like to suggest another one: remove old Meeting logs from the wiki >> and place them somewhere else. Searching for a string in the wiki takes >> longer and longer every month and often finds a lots of old cruft from >> old meeting logs. > I have done a little research on this part and I don't think we'd get > much of a gain performance wise. It would clean things up a bit. Especially the latter thing seems important to me, as searching for stuff in the wiki these days often afaics finds more often uninteresting meeting minutes then then what you really look for. > Interestingly, we have more users (9989) on Moin then we have pages (7214) Well, but if we add logs from - FESCo - EPEL - Ambassadors - Docs - FPC (those add two pages per meeting) - some other projects I forget just now each week then the number of pages will increase to much over time IMHO. CU thl ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
Karsten Wade wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:13 -0400, seth vidal wrote: I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition? You are just a few steps ahead, that is all. I got the lawyer-based permission and guidelines for using a click-through CLA for the Wiki. When that is setup, we can stop using EditGroup for the site-wide ACLs. When ... uh, whenever we get to it. I feel guilty every time I see an addition to EditGroup, but this one is a little lower on the current priorities. Still, what needs to be done is: * Click-through page enabled for new users -- must check "Agree" and then submit the form. * Click-through page is (probably) an Include() of the CLA contents itself -- not very proc intensive to do that, since people only see that page when they create their account. * Confirm that ACLs for special areas (Docs/) are working. Anything else? Other than tell people and celebrate? The dividing line between "click-through is OK" and "need to GPG-sign" is if the user has the ability to put content directly into a content storage system from where it goes into a package (then into an ISO.) So, we can leave Docs/Beats/ open to click-through CLAers because that content is edited before going into CVS (and a package), all done by people who have signed the CLA with a GPG key. This is analogous to patches and such that come in via mailing lists and bugzilla. The special locations such as Docs/ are Wiki-based publishing points, so Docs Project contributor guidelines come into play. FYI All: I did a test on this this weekend and my page save was about 17 seconds, a pretty significant difference. So here's the plan. 1) Grab a list of all the users to be removed (Users not in EditGroup and not watching any pages) 2) Send a mass email of notification of removal and why 3) Remove users (will make a backup) 4) Enjoy our much faster but still slow save pages. -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
Mike, I don't know if the cleaning has begun but I seem to have lost my wiki account (JohnBaer). :( My home page is still there and everything else Is the process to create a new wiki account with the same credentials as the old? John ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
John Baer wrote: Mike, I don't know if the cleaning has begun but I seem to have lost my wiki account (JohnBaer). :( My home page is still there and everything else Is the process to create a new wiki account with the same credentials as the old? John You should be ok now, my scripts are taking a really long time. -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
Same happened to me, and i know that im in EditGroup. Paulo On 4/10/07, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Baer wrote: > Mike, > > I don't know if the cleaning has begun but I seem to have lost my wiki > account (JohnBaer). :( > > My home page is still there and everything else > > Is the process to create a new wiki account with the same credentials as > the old? > > John > You should be ok now, my scripts are taking a really long time. -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Moin question
On 4/5/07, Karsten Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Send an announcement (f-announce-l) that we are doing an account audit and cleaning: * All account without watches and/or edit privs will be removed * The UserName shall be purged, so it is available again later * Link to page with more explanation. 2. Can we post for ... 24 hours? 48 hours? a short announcement everywhere on the Wiki? Change the theme or something so there is a notice that points to a page explaining the above. Soulds like a good plan. +1 -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
