James Carlson wrote:
Jim Grisanzio writes:
We'll not lose any critical history and here's why: active groups
maintain their content and infrastructure very well, and their stuff
will be moved over to the new site. Once there, XWiki will provide a
convenient content management system for page histories, etc. However,
there is no need to move over empty groups or piles of abandoned
content. If we can delete that stuff, that would be helpful.
I would recommend checking out the dicussion that occurred over in
networking-discuss. There's a substantial part of the engineering
community that disagrees vehemently with that assertion:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=103471&tstart=0
... and is in fact quite surprised and dismayed that removing old
projects is even under discussion.
(Personally, I *do* agree, and I think that old projects ought to be
flushed, and that the real problem here is a lack of a good design
documentation repository and a lack of process related to integrating
that sort of crucial information. I'm pretty much alone in that,
though.)
Hi ... thanks for starting that thread. :) It`s good to raise awareness
of the issue and the site migration. I mean that sincerely.
I am only suggesting that people use the opportunity to clean house a
bit. If content is valuable, even if it`s old, than of course it should
be kept and no one would suggest otherwise. People can disagree with
/how/ it should be kept and /what/ to keep, but it`s just good project
management to poke around from time to time and clean things up and
organize things better. Those decisions really remain with the project
leaders in the vast majority of cases (who am I to decide, right?). Even
if a project is finished and no longer active, it would be great to mark
it "archive" or something and have it sit there for history and
reference sake (though I`d like the lists made inactive if they are not
being used so they don`t attract spam). All of that is fine. And as I
said, I think the majority of active groups maintain their spaces quite
well and will be moved over just fine.
However, in obvious cases where a group space (project, community, user
group) is abandoned or empty or not well maintained then I think the
sponsoring CG and/or the OGB has every right to suggest that that space
be cleaned up and owned or deleted. I just think that`s reasonable.
Heck, two OGBs ago we were talking about various community reorgs and
addressing some of this issue of unused infrastructure. In Advocacy, for
example, I have some content that I wrote that at this point applies to
nothing. So, I will delete that stuff. For other stuff, I will start
conversations on list or contact people privately (which I have already
done) to determine the value of some things I think may be questionable
(such as abandoned projects, lists, and user groups). Those will all be
local decisions for the most part. No central authority is going to go
from project to project to police this among all the hundreds of groups
we have (except for the few extreme cases). It`s just a suggestion for
people take stock of their own stuff before we make a big content migration.
So, that`s how I am addressing John`s question (which was a reasonable
one). We don`t lose any history when xyz community opened in 2005 and
remains empty today with spam living on its lists and all the project
leads sitting on the beach. It`s those extreme cases like that I`d like
to clean up.
Thanks ...
Jim
--
opensolaris.org transition: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/web/
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
