incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Access to wiki
Date Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:03:28 GMT
On 7 August 2011 21:58, Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> On 6 August 2011 22:11, Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 10:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Maybe I'm too skeptical,  but do we really have thousands of non core
>>> project members dropping in for minutes at a time, adding information
>>> on the architecture of OOo?  And build instructions? Looking at the
>>> history of these pages, it looks more like this is core dev-enabling
>>> information that should be part of the core project website.
>>
>> If there is *one* person who is unable to make that first, simple
>> contribution then there is *one* person who the project cannot move
>> from user to committer. Sustainable open source (managed under the
>> Apache Way) is about maximising the number of people who can
>> contribute. That is not the same as maximising the number of people
>> who do contribute (although the latter will usually be a side product
>> of the former).
>>
>
> Perhaps my point was not clear.  I was saying that for some areas of
> the project, where it is important to publish authoritative, PPMC
> approved information, that this should be CRT for committers, but RTC
> for others.  That doesn't mean that we need to raise initial barriers
> for contributors. It should be very easy to submit a contribution.
> But it does mean that for some areas -- code being an obvious one --
> we don't allow non-committers to change the repository directly.
> Contributors are mediated via the review and approval of committers.
> In parallel with that RTC cycle, we proactively identify potential new
> committers.

Fair enough. But remember documentation writers are very often not
technical. How do we minimise the barriers for them?


> There is nothing in what I said that suggests we should not encourage
> contributions.  I only said that in some areas we should be careful to
> establish PPMC oversight via the normal means.

Yes, which is why I and others are suggesting:

- an open wiki for user contributed documentation
- a closed wiki (the CMS?) for official documentation (which accepts patches)
- a process for moving appropriate content from the former to the latter
- a process for handling patches for the latter

Ross

Mime
View raw message