incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Hollis Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:21:24 GMT
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 08:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I'd look at it like this:  The documentation that is needed for our
> >> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
> >> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
> >> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
> >> our users some harm, then it is product documentation.  If the right
> >> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
> >> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
> >> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
> >> is product documentation.
> >
> > Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> > wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> > guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> > from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> > They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> > able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> > license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> > updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> > contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> > Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> > put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
> >
> 
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code.  Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
> 
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set.  Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
> 
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation.  This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
> 
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change.  So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches.  A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
> 
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository.  With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this.  Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
> 
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength.  But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well.  I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.

As far as I can tell, you are talking about direct edits to the wiki.
That is not what I asked about. 

--Jean



Mime
View raw message