On Aug 8, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Donald Woods wrote:

I'd prefer a new link under the Community leftnav and one or more pages behind it in our existing GMOxSITE wiki.

Sounds good to me. 


Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:15 AM, weberj wrote:

For Glassfish there are several sucess stories: http://blogs.sun.com/stories/

Are there for Geronimo / wasce too? If not, I suggest to collect in the Wiki
like this page:
http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo/presentations.html

Pointy haired bosses will rather decide in favor of Geronimo if you can show
them that BigMegaCorp is using Geronimo with a zillion transactions a day.
Heh. Thanks for the imagery. :-)
I totally agree. We recently received a request for the same information. How do others feel? I'd like to hear from users, committers, and, of course, our PMC members.
There are several different possible categories:
Users of Geronimo (Geronimo server, Geronimo components, etc)
Applications/Plugins that run on Geronimo
Projects/companies that bundle, repackage, or support Geronimo in some manner.
Information could be located either on our web site (e.g. http://geronimo.apache.org/GeronimoUsers) or our Wiki (e.g. http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo/PoweredBy).
Here are a few projects which maintain similar pages:
ActiveMQ -- http://activemq.apache.org/users.html
Tomcat -- http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/PoweredBy
We'll need a process for how information is added to this list. I see the following scenarios:
1) Information is volunteered to the project by interested parties (e.g. a user sends information to our user@ list about how they are using Geronimo)
2) Usage information is publicly announced -- web site, publication, press release, etc.
I would be in favor of both scenarios.
Do we need any guidelines on content? Should we allow images, limit the amount of text, limit the amount of hype/marketing?
Personally, I'd rather not spin cycles in being too precise in creating guidelines. I'd prefer to see a CTR process -- if someone finds an entry objectionable, then simply register the complaint. The offending entry should be removed until all issues have been addressed.
Anything else that should be included in this discussion?
--kevan