harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Morozova, Nadezhda" <nadezhda.moroz...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
Date Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:57:26 GMT
Is there anything wrong with what I did? 
I can revert the change if there are opponents. I really don't mean to
be too pushy or anything. It's just that we seem to have discussed the
nav pane changes, and the model was posted on the sandbox. I apologize
if this was not too elegant :) 

Cheers, 
Nadya
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:25 AM
>To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
>
>Where did governance go?
>
>On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>
>> Changed nav pane has been committed.
>> Can continue with cosmetic changes, but at least we have the changes
>> visible now. Phjuh.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nadya
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:34 PM
>>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geir,
>>>> Thanks for a prompt reply. I'm glad you're on the OK side :)
>>>
>>> By that I mean that the current menu as currently on the site is
>>> ok...
>>>
>>>> Specifics per your concerns:
>>>> - ASF and Other Projects links - suggest that we add these to the
>>>> General list
>>>
>>> ASF already was in the general list.  Other Projects seems
>>> appropriate for a community section.
>>>
>>>> - wiki - we have mobile data there and I don't see what's wrong
with
>>>> having it in the Documentation.
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean here.
>>>
>>>> - policy and guidelines: guidelines seems a gathering of
multi-topic
>>>> info, suggest that we restructure it, several ideas below.
>>>
>>> I agree we should restructure it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <we're drifting toward issue (2 - some generic pages need
>>>> improvement) >
>>>>
>>>> Current project guidelines content and suggestions:
>>>> * People, Places, and Things: defines roles of committer,
>> contributor,
>>>> PMC (btw, is outdated) - can go into Who We Are (former committers'
>>>> page)
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>> * Status: tells wrong N/A info about status files - should be
>>>> removed
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>> * Voting: describes +1/-1 votes etc - can go into Policy or into
>>>> Resolution guidelines
>>>
>>> No - contribution policy is something very special and specific to
>>> this project, something no other ASF project has.  I think that
>>> mixing it with canonical ASF project governance concepts is wrong.
>>>
>>>> * Types of action items: defines types of issues by severity and
>>>> specifics -  can fit naturally into Issue Resolution Guidelines
>>>> since it
>>>> describes issues that are further resolved :)
>>>
>>> Don't agree.   There are "big picture" issue governance, and detail
>>> governance.
>>>
>>>> * When to commit a change: gives generics on comits; is info for
>>>> committers only - can go into committers or Get Involved page or
>> issue
>>>> resolution since it explain issue resolution by patch commit
>>>
>>> could be
>>>
>>>> * Patch format: tips on how to create patches - fits into Get
>>>> Involved,
>>>> subheading How to Create and Submit A Patch or Enhancement.
>>>
>>> Yep
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Nadya
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:55 PM
>>>>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> After a long-long pause, I'm restarting the thread about our
>> website
>>>>>> navigation menu and generic pages that require improvement. I
hope
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> after the New Year all the emotions have boiled down and we can
>> move
>>>>>> over this quickly :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Key ideas that were gathered during the review of the sandbox
>>>>>> copy of
>>>>>> website:
>>>>>> (1) navigation menu is mostly ok though several improvements are
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in the "it's ok" camp. There are tweaks, but I still don't see
>>>>> where major change is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) some generic pages require improvement because they're
>>>>>> outdated
>>>> or
>>>>>> do not contain required info or don't deliver their main idea
>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) starting page does not give a clear idea of where our project
>> is
>>>> -
>>>>>> for a newcomer
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's address these one by one. This letter is about (1) only.
For
>>>> (2)
>>>>>> and (3), I'll send patches per page so that we don't miss
anything
>>>>>> during the review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the nav pane, I've a patch ready and waiting for your
>>>>>> approval to
>>>>>> commit. If you are strongly against a change suggested, let's
>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>> this. New version:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> General
>>>>>>     * Home
>>>>>>     * License
>>>>>>     * Contribution Policy
>>>>>>     * Downloads
>>>>>>     * FAQ
>>>>>> (removed references to ASF and project guidelines because the
>>>>>> Guidelines
>>>>>> actually have info on a number of very different topics, we can
>>>>>> try
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> find a better place for them; having Policy *and* Guidelines
>>>>>> confuses
>>>>>> many people)
>>>>>
>>>>> We're an ASF project - please put the ASF link back.
>>>>>
>>>>> who has been confused by having "Contribution Policy" and "Project
>>>>> Guidelines"?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Community
>>>>>>     * Get Involved
>>>>>>     * Who we are
>>>>>>     * Mailing Lists
>>>>>>     * Bug Tracker
>>>>>> (removed Documentation (useless page), FAQ is above now, Wiki
>>>>>> is in
>>>>>> docs
>>>>>> now, renamed Committers > Who we are (might not be the best name,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> the page can be about PMC, committers and contributors, why only
>> the
>>>>>> committers?); moved JIRA to this list and renamed > Bug Tracker
as
>>>> the
>>>>>> more generic term)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Development
>>>>>>     * Source Code
>>>>>>     * Getting Started (link for contributors)
>>>>>>     * Project Roadmap
>>>>>>     * Resolution Guideline
>>>>>> (removed How are we Doing (useless page), moved roadmap lower to
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> Source code stand out, removed Other projects (rarely used page),
>>>>>> added
>>>>>> Resolution guideline)
>>>>>
>>>>> We should keep the "Other Projects" and keep it up to date.  Why
>>>>> are
>>>>> Resolution Guidlines not in docs?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Documentation
>>>>>>     * Sitemap
>>>>>>     * Wiki
>>>>>>     * HDK
>>>>>>     * DRLVM
>>>>>>     * Class Libraries
>>>>>>     * Build-test Framework
>>>>>> (renamed Subcomponents > Documentation; added sitemap (the file
>>>> itself
>>>>>> is under development now), added wiki link here, added HDK page
>>>>>> (discussible, but hope to have a nice patch to describe our
>>>>>> deliverable
>>>>>> there); removed classlib status (outdated, we can have Wiki
>> instead)
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, I'm not a big fan of having important info on the Wiki.  can
we
>>>>> put that back?  I think it's important to have that kind of
>>>>> stuff in
>>>>> one place, here on the site.
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> nadya

Mime
View raw message