With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the
originally proposed change?
Nick
On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for
violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it
would not penalize other sites...
This done we could block the page for users who would like to exceed
their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how that
works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page access)
Jacques
Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux
<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
Please could you point the issues you see there?
The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must
be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have
clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can
add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only
companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there are
several companies in the page that mention the term "contributors"
even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz PMC), I see links
to external sites that the ASF is monitoring for violations to the
ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see pages that are a mess and
clearly they can't be officially endorsed by the project.
Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF is
clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link them
from the main site.
Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
page
<<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of
the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will
certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own
decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible.
Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by someone
and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to separate
contributors from committers in this column.
Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW,
Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed)
and committers in this list?
I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided it
was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of
separating concerns.
Jacques
I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on
these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely publish
this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the PMC has to
endorse them or fix them.
Jacopo
