harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
Date Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:34:09 GMT

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 PMC (btw, is outdated) - can go into Who We Are (former committers'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