I guess that you could create a patch with the proposed changes and then create
a Jira ticket, then start a voting thread in the dev list.
Before we go into it, I anticipate here some conditions that I think are
important:
* I would like to review examples from other ASF projects doing the same; in
this thread it was mentioned that several other projects are doing the same; I
don't have time to research but if a volunteer could provide a list of projects
and URLs of such documents I would be happy to review them
* remove from the documents any links to external sites that are not strictly
following the ASF trademark guidelines; this includes all the sites containing
the OFBiz name in the domain (e.g. ofbiz.info)
* the link from the OFBiz website should have enough information to clearly
show that the referenced documents are not under the control of the PMC, but
instead they are "open" documents at the disposal of the public
* the same disclaimer is added at the top of each page
* the documents open in a different tab (i.e. they use the "target" attribute)
* they are not added to the top navigation bar; my preference would be to add
them to the body of the index page, in this paragraph:
"For answers to your questions you might find the following documents useful:
• Documentation
• Documentation - Project Overview
• Documentation - Getting Started"
* we define clear rules on the format and content of these pages: define the
column and content that each field can contain, the order of the entries,
define if there are minimal requirements for publishing a company/site, define
the amount of text each field can have, where external links can be defined
Jacopo
On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nick Rosser <nros...@solveda.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
