Re: Updates from the GNOME Sysadmin Team
On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 22:23 +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: > 2013/11/21 Ekaterina Gerasimova > [...] > > When you document how to lock down individual pages to prevent random > > people from from editing them, please send the link to the mailing > > lists as it is moderately complicated if one has not done it before. > > Sure, that can be done this way: > > 1. Create a page with the following syntax: 'SysadminGroup' > 2. add a list of wiki usernames like https://wiki.gnome.org/SysadminGroup > 3. add the ACL at the beginning of the wiki page you want to lock down: > > #acl WikiPageName/SysadminGroup:read,write,delete,admin,revert All:read Beware that the group wiki page name *must* end in 'Group'. Otherwise, you can get an immutable wiki page that nobody can edit [1] (only a sysadmin, Andrea: it would be great if you could delete it :-). Tip from someone who learned that in the hard way (of course, I followed the standard procedure of reading the documentation [2,3] afterwards :-) [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Travel/CurrentCommittee [2] http://moinmo.in/HelpOnAccessControlLists [3] http://moinmo.in/HelpOnGroups -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Updates from the GNOME Sysadmin Team
2013/11/21 Ekaterina Gerasimova > On 21 November 2013 15:48, Andrea Veri wrote: > > 2. projects.gnome.org's migration to wiki.gnome.org. > > > > The projects.gnome.org website is currently being migrated to the > following > > places: > > > > GNOME Apps: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps > > GNOME Projects: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects > > > > Both pages are currently under construction. Maintainers and developers > will > > now be able to modify their app / project page without the need of a git > > account > > Don't all maintainers have to have a git account anyway? :) Not necessarily, someone might just be a random contributor that spots an error on the documentation and wants to fix it right away. Honestly speaking I'm loving this new look, pages are more readable now, with a new design, easier to maintain and modify by everyone having a Wiki account. Have you ever cloned the gnomeweb-wml repository yourself? It's around 600M in size :-) > > and most of all without the need to clone an huge repo like > > gnomeweb-wml. All these without losing some of the benefits of Git like > the > > history of previous changes and a diff between the various page changes > > themselves. > > When you document how to lock down individual pages to prevent random > people from from editing them, please send the link to the mailing > lists as it is moderately complicated if one has not done it before. > Sure, that can be done this way: 1. Create a page with the following syntax: 'SysadminGroup' 2. add a list of wiki usernames like https://wiki.gnome.org/SysadminGroup 3. add the ACL at the beginning of the wiki page you want to lock down: #acl WikiPageName/SysadminGroup:read,write,delete,admin,revert All:read Have an awesome day! -- Cheers, Andrea Debian Developer, Fedora / EPEL packager, GNOME Sysadmin, GNOME Foundation Membership & Elections Committee Chairman Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/~av ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Archiving wiki pages [was: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013]
On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 18:23 +, Allan Day wrote: > Dave Neary wrote: > >>> Mairin worked on logo & brand guidelines back in 2006. That was the work > >>> (I believe that you based this page off. > >> > >> Those old guidelines were seriously out of date and were desperately > >> in need of a refresh. We have also been wanting to move the guidelines > >> off the public wiki for (literally) years. I'm only embarrassed that > >> it took me so long to get around to it. :) > > > > what was out of date about them? > > To be clear - their uptodateness was only one motivation for the > rewrite. There's been requests to move them off the public part of the > wiki for quite some time, and the old guidelines could have been much > clearer (I'm not going to list all the reasons why). I think I > succeeded in creating something that is much more succinct, and that > people understand more readily (maybe that's one reason for the > attention the guidelines have got). There were also obvious omissions, > like the lack of guidelines on the GNOME name. > > For me the out of date part primarily related to the colours and > sub-brands - none of this reflected current practice, either by the > sub-brands that do exist or the kind of graphics we use on the > website, flyers, posters, annual reports and so on. The sub-brands > part of the page was also indicated to not be approved by the board - > which sent a confusing message. IMVHO, I would prefer if the board had approved the colors (I blame myself for not pushing that when I was there). I would not want to be forced to remove any the GNOME-related merchandising I have because of the trademark guidelines became stricter. I checked and none of my 13 t-shirts with the GNOME logo follows strictly the colors there, that includes the GUADEC ones. None of my 3 caps, neither the sticker on my laptop. The only item remaining to be compliant is my mug. I had the idea that the banner we made in Chile back then was kind of cool. It made a distinctive mark in conferences. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
On 11/21/2013 05:04 AM, Allan Day wrote: > Vincent Untz wrote: >> - "Always ensure that the logo is black or white, depending on the >> background color (other colors are not permitted)" >> => we fail at this, as we produced relatively recently stickers with >>a yellow foot, and I'm pretty sure there are still many cases >>where this is ignored > > I think it depends on the context of use, but black and white are most > familiar and work in the majority of cases. It's pretty hard to have > guidelines for more creative uses of the logo, so this was just meant > to cover the common cases. Maybe we could have a statement that says > "please check with us if you want to use the logo in a way that > doesn't follow the guidelines"? I see the brand book I put together with Jeff Waugh way back when (where that vertical version of the logo came from, and the existing logotype) has been unceremoniously deleted or somehow obscured from being able to be viewed on the wiki now. Any time I hit a search term that seems to point to it, I get a redirect to this new logo and trademarks page. If I *could* access it, I would point out that the original brand book where the current logos came from did actually have guidelines to cover more creative use cases including a specific color palette that was authorized. I believe an OPW intern expanded upon this in a brand book project as well, and that work is also pretty much impossible to retrieve from the wiki now. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Archiving wiki pages [was: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013]
Hi, On 11/21/2013 12:12 PM, Allan Day wrote: > Dave Neary wrote: >> Mairin worked on logo & brand guidelines back in 2006. That was the work >> (I believe that you based this page off. > > Those old guidelines were seriously out of date and were desperately > in need of a refresh. We have also been wanting to move the guidelines > off the public wiki for (literally) years. I'm only embarrassed that > it took me so long to get around to it. :) what was out of date about them? >> And all of the links to her >> work are now broken and point at this page. > > Links to our trademark guidelines shouldn't point to our trademark > guidelines? I don't get your point... Links to specific revisions in email threads had stopped working, and on the page I landed on, I did not see the history of the page (as you saw later in the thread, I did find the history later after logging in, so the old content hasn't disappeared). I know we can't rely on wili pages being permalinks, by I for one would like to see "...if you are looking for the content which was here formerly, you can find it [archive link] here". > [1] > https://cloud.gnome.org/public.php?service=files&t=a449c85c1f3af0d761eddb018e45388b&path=//BrandBook > [2] https://wiki.gnome.org/action/info/BrandGuidelines?action=info Would it be possible to link to these when archiving/cleaning out content, please? The cloud.gnome.org stuff is great - but this is the first time I've seen it, it's not very findable from the wiki. Thanks! Dave. -- Dave Neary, Lyon, France Email: dne...@gnome.org Jabber: nea...@gmail.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
On 11/21/2013 10:59 AM, Allan Day wrote: > Máirín Duffy wrote: >> I see the brand book I put together with Jeff Waugh way back when (where >> that vertical version of the logo came from, and the existing logotype) >> has been unceremoniously deleted or somehow obscured from being able to >> be viewed on the wiki now. Any time I hit a search term that seems to >> point to it, I get a redirect to this new logo and trademarks page. > ... > > There have been a number of threads about this on the Engagement list, > and it was discussed at the Marketing Hackfest (there were blog posts > about this) and at GUADEC. I didn't see anyone volunteering to help me > with this work at the time, or subsequently... > > The files were moved to cloud.gnome.org as a part of a general clean > up exercise which was announced on the mailing list. There are links > to the new location of these files from the Engagement team wiki page. > I had no idea there was even an engagement list. Was it announced on this list? Why was a redirect put in place? It comes off as very aggressive. Why not have a placeholder page that has a link to the new page, so that the history is still accessible? I have no clue how you dug up that cloud.gnome.org link, how does one look something like that up? How would a layman researching GNOME's brand history come across that? Certainly not through Google, I tried! And what of the OPW intern's work? ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote: > On 11/21/2013 10:59 AM, Allan Day wrote: >> Máirín Duffy wrote: >>> I see the brand book I put together with Jeff Waugh way back when (where >>> that vertical version of the logo came from, and the existing logotype) >>> has been unceremoniously deleted or somehow obscured from being able to >>> be viewed on the wiki now. Any time I hit a search term that seems to >>> point to it, I get a redirect to this new logo and trademarks page. >> ... >> >> There have been a number of threads about this on the Engagement list, >> and it was discussed at the Marketing Hackfest (there were blog posts >> about this) and at GUADEC. I didn't see anyone volunteering to help me >> with this work at the time, or subsequently... >> >> The files were moved to cloud.gnome.org as a part of a general clean >> up exercise which was announced on the mailing list. There are links >> to the new location of these files from the Engagement team wiki page. >> > > I had no idea there was even an engagement list. Was it announced on > this list? I believe we announced back in June that the Marketing Team was changing its name to Engagement after the hackfest in New York City. I'm not sure that the change was announced on foundation-list, though I am fairly certain it was on marketing, and was certainly blogged about a good bit at the time. > > Why was a redirect put in place? It comes off as very aggressive. > > Why not have a placeholder page that has a link to the new page, so that > the history is still accessible? I have no clue how you dug up that > cloud.gnome.org link, how does one look something like that up? How > would a layman researching GNOME's brand history come across that? > Certainly not through Google, I tried! > > And what of the OPW intern's work? > > ~m > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr.Seuss Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. - Albert Einstein ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote: > And what of the OPW intern's work? Liansu Yu is the intern who you are thinking of, I believe. It looks like Liansu Yu's work can be accessed the links on the is page[1] or via Archive ->Presentations and Archive ->Visual Identity. Meg Ford [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Engagement/Presentations ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
Máirín Duffy wrote: > I see the brand book I put together with Jeff Waugh way back when (where > that vertical version of the logo came from, and the existing logotype) > has been unceremoniously deleted or somehow obscured from being able to > be viewed on the wiki now. Any time I hit a search term that seems to > point to it, I get a redirect to this new logo and trademarks page. ... There have been a number of threads about this on the Engagement list, and it was discussed at the Marketing Hackfest (there were blog posts about this) and at GUADEC. I didn't see anyone volunteering to help me with this work at the time, or subsequently... The files were moved to cloud.gnome.org as a part of a general clean up exercise which was announced on the mailing list. There are links to the new location of these files from the Engagement team wiki page. Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Archiving wiki pages [was: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013]
Dave Neary wrote: >>> Mairin worked on logo & brand guidelines back in 2006. That was the work >>> (I believe that you based this page off. >> >> Those old guidelines were seriously out of date and were desperately >> in need of a refresh. We have also been wanting to move the guidelines >> off the public wiki for (literally) years. I'm only embarrassed that >> it took me so long to get around to it. :) > > what was out of date about them? To be clear - their uptodateness was only one motivation for the rewrite. There's been requests to move them off the public part of the wiki for quite some time, and the old guidelines could have been much clearer (I'm not going to list all the reasons why). I think I succeeded in creating something that is much more succinct, and that people understand more readily (maybe that's one reason for the attention the guidelines have got). There were also obvious omissions, like the lack of guidelines on the GNOME name. For me the out of date part primarily related to the colours and sub-brands - none of this reflected current practice, either by the sub-brands that do exist or the kind of graphics we use on the website, flyers, posters, annual reports and so on. The sub-brands part of the page was also indicated to not be approved by the board - which sent a confusing message. >>> And all of the links to her >>> work are now broken and point at this page. >> >> Links to our trademark guidelines shouldn't point to our trademark >> guidelines? I don't get your point... > > Links to specific revisions in email threads had stopped working, and on > the page I landed on, I did not see the history of the page (as you saw > later in the thread, I did find the history later after logging in, so > the old content hasn't disappeared). I know we can't rely on wili pages > being permalinks, by I for one would like to see "...if you are looking > for the content which was here formerly, you can find it [archive link] > here". That sounds like a good idea. >> [1] >> https://cloud.gnome.org/public.php?service=files&t=a449c85c1f3af0d761eddb018e45388b&path=//BrandBook >> [2] https://wiki.gnome.org/action/info/BrandGuidelines?action=info > > Would it be possible to link to these when archiving/cleaning out > content, please? The cloud.gnome.org stuff is great - but this is the > first time I've seen it, it's not very findable from the wiki. There are a couple of links on the Engagement team page. Suggestions for ways to make it more visible are welcome. Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Updates from the GNOME Sysadmin Team
On 21 November 2013 15:48, Andrea Veri wrote: > 2. projects.gnome.org's migration to wiki.gnome.org. > > The projects.gnome.org website is currently being migrated to the following > places: > > GNOME Apps: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps > GNOME Projects: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects > > Both pages are currently under construction. Maintainers and developers will > now be able to modify their app / project page without the need of a git > account Don't all maintainers have to have a git account anyway? :) > and most of all without the need to clone an huge repo like > gnomeweb-wml. All these without losing some of the benefits of Git like the > history of previous changes and a diff between the various page changes > themselves. When you document how to lock down individual pages to prevent random people from from editing them, please send the link to the mailing lists as it is moderately complicated if one has not done it before. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
Dave Neary wrote: >> Mairin worked on logo & brand guidelines back in 2006. That was the work >> (I believe that you based this page off. And all of the links to her >> work are now broken and point at this page. The archive is gone. The >> history is gone. > > I found the last revision of the guidelines before the recent changes: > https://wiki.gnome.org/action/recall/BrandGuidelines?action=recall&rev=51 > > As you can see, there is a section on colours, a section on submarks, > and more. Which clearly says: "The following section of the brand guidelines have not been approved by the GNOME Foundation Board." Didn't want to copy over unapproved guidelines. Also, I don't think that the examples in that page represent good practice. Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Archiving wiki pages [was: Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013]
Dave Neary wrote: >> That page is pretty new. The intention was to consolidate the >> pre-existing guidelines, but there's a chance that some of the issues >> you mention are simply bugs that need to be ironed out. > > This raises a very important point. > > Mairin worked on logo & brand guidelines back in 2006. That was the work > (I believe that you based this page off. Those old guidelines were seriously out of date and were desperately in need of a refresh. We have also been wanting to move the guidelines off the public wiki for (literally) years. I'm only embarrassed that it took me so long to get around to it. :) > And all of the links to her > work are now broken and point at this page. Links to our trademark guidelines shouldn't point to our trademark guidelines? I don't get your point... > The archive is gone. The > history is gone. Not true. All the assets from that page were moved to an archive section [1] in cloud.gnome.org. You can also still see the history of that page [2]. > We are losing collected collective wisdom at al alarming rate in the > GNOME project as people (like myself) become less active and old wiki > pages get deleted wholesale as we move to new infrastructure and the > content gets "refreshed". > > I don't think this is a good thing, but if it's a conscious decision > that's one thing. If it's collateral damage and is happening unawares, > then it's more serious (and consider this to be calling attention to it). We know that outdated material on the wiki is a serious problem, particularly for new contributors. I think it's great that things are getting updated and cleaned out. Valuable material shouldn't be discarded in the process, of course, but I know I've made an effort to save anything that looks like it needs saving. Allan [1] https://cloud.gnome.org/public.php?service=files&t=a449c85c1f3af0d761eddb018e45388b&path=//BrandBook [2] https://wiki.gnome.org/action/info/BrandGuidelines?action=info ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
Hi, On 11/21/2013 11:58 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > Mairin worked on logo & brand guidelines back in 2006. That was the work > (I believe that you based this page off. And all of the links to her > work are now broken and point at this page. The archive is gone. The > history is gone. I found the last revision of the guidelines before the recent changes: https://wiki.gnome.org/action/recall/BrandGuidelines?action=recall&rev=51 As you can see, there is a section on colours, a section on submarks, and more. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary, Lyon, France Email: dne...@gnome.org / Jabber: nea...@gmail.com Ph: +33 950 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013
Hi, On 11/21/2013 09:01 AM, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le lundi 18 novembre 2013, à 08:51 +, Ekaterina Gerasimova a écrit : >>> Can they not use the GNOME foot at all? >> >> Yes, under nominative use when referring to GNOME itself. The logo and >> trademark guidelines are available at >> http://www.gnome.org/logo-and-trademarks/ > > So I guess I didn't notice the time where we started to enforce this. I > do have issues with the guidelines, as I believe they're not working > well for a community driven project (and product!). I agree with this. We do want to maintain brand integrity so that we can protect the trademark against *real* abuses, but clearly a very strict trademark policy has not worked for us (the cost of policing it has been very high). > I mean: > > - "Always ensure that the logo is black or white, depending on the > background color (other colors are not permitted)" > => we fail at this, as we produced relatively recently stickers with >a yellow foot, and I'm pretty sure there are still many cases >where this is ignored > > - "Always ensure that the logo is not embedded within other images or > graphics." > => we fail at this with the GNOME.Asia logo > > - the page seems to imply that we must always have the full logo (ie, >not just the foot, but also the word GNOME). Clearly, this is not >respected by way too many people, including ourselves. > > - we keep insisting about using the TM (which, btw, we don't use in the >control center in the system details panel) -- that is a big pain and >makes things ugly. My recollection of various debates about this from >when I was on the board is that it's not even required, but just >recommended. The TM is optional for the trademark (and I for one advocated for dropping it for purely aesthetic reasons in the past). The insistence on using it was, IIRC, a *recommendation* (not requirement) from our lawyers several years ago (also, I believe the GNOME foot is a registered trademark, so you can/should use R instead of TM). That said, for the first 2 points, I think you missed a nuance: The trademark guidelines are the set of things you can do with the logo by default *without permission from the trademark owner*. You can do pretty much anything with explicit permission from the trademark owner - trademark owners grant licenses for logos that do not conform with trademark guidelines/nominative use all the time. Ubuntu is one example. That was why we came up with the user group trademark license which was a click-through license which gives slightly more liberty with the mark. And I would encorage people like user groups to request permission to use "hacked" GNOME feet in their logos from the board, and would encourage the board to grant exceptions frequently for such community uses. This is, by the way, the alternative that Luis was looking into IIRC (this, and the concept of the Community Mark proposed many years ago by Chris Messina for logos that enter the zeitgeist). Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary, Lyon, France Email: dne...@gnome.org Jabber: nea...@gmail.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
