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 yo
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
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'l
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
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
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
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
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 th
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 i
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 1
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.
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,
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,
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://peop
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 expresse
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 inst
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 t
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 us
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 w
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
v
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 Le
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
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 ak
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 lik
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 f
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 noti
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 accepta
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
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
maki
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
"Y
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, a
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 allowin
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 do
33 matches
Mail list logo
