I didn't do an exhaustive search but the Active-MQ project has a link to
"users":
http://activemq.apache.org/users.html
This is an "internal" doc -- not an external link.
Note that they also have a "Team" link which lists all active Committers
and Contributors.
And also a "Projects using" link which lists a bunch of projects that
include the technology.
I haven't specifically found anything that lists the equivalent of
"service providers" but still maintain that having this is critical for
an organization considering adopting OFBiz for a bet-your-business
software solution.
Carousel: all good points being raised -- showing key benefits and
client usage would be a nice upgrade.
On 2/20/2014 5:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Inline...
Le 20/02/2014 10:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
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.
If there are changes in wiki, maybe better to simply discuss them here
(or in a Jira indeed to keep things focused) about changes to do and
get a consensus on what to do and not. Then any wiki contributor could
do it...
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)
I totally second this!
* 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
I think it's enough to put the disclaimer in the concerned pages
* 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"
I believe we could add 2 links in the Resources & Tools section (or
create a new section?) in the main page as long as there are
disclaimers in the concerned pages. The goal is to make these links
obvious to users
* 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
+1
Jacques
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
