incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From C <smau...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:25:57 GMT
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 00:43, Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com> wrote:
> If you have 20,000 zombie accounts then I think that is a serious
> argument for disabling all the existing accounts and starting fresh,
> with controlled access.

There are just over 35k accounts on the Wiki now.  About half are
"real" accounts... the rest were created and abandoned.  This is
normal for any wiki.  There was a large number accounts that were
created around 2006 by a spam bot (sequential numbered accounts etc).
This was before spam controls were put in place as it is now.

Disabling all accounts is really counter productive for a Wiki.


> Don't delete content.  Just disable accounts.  If someone had one user
> id back in 1999 and get a different one today, is that the end of the
> world?  If it is to many people, then we can either delete all
> accounts and let project members get the accounts of their choice, or
> we can reactive disabled accounts on request.

It's not just about accounts.  You've got a huge number of
contributors that have edited content on the Wiki... you
disable/delete all the accounts, and you have zero accreditation for
their contribution... just "user unknown" (for deleted accounts).  How
is that fair to the thousands of past contributors?  How does that
meet the requirements of any licenses attributed to the content?
Would you do something like this (remove all contributor history) in
the source code repos?  I don't thinks so... so why would you consider
it for the Wiki?

Delete the dead accounts... OK, but you gain virtually zero from doing
this (unless you're migrating to Apache LDAP or some centralized user
account system)... but delete active accounts and tell people "just
get a new one"?  I can't see that going over too well.


> We don't allow everyone to change the code in the repositories.  We
> don't allow everyone to directly edit the project's website.  The fact
> that there is a community does not mean that we allow 20,000 people,
> including spammers, to have accounts and give them the ability to edit
> all resources.

A Wiki is not source code, and no one expects everyone to be able to
edit the website... Apples and radios (I can't say oranges because the
two things are so far removed it's apples and radios).  Editing on the
OOoWiki is not editing all OOo resources.  No one is saying the 35,000
Wiki account holders should be source code committers as well.


> Receiving contributions from contributors, reviewing them and merging
> them into the project, this is a key function of any healthy Apache
> project.  Committers need to step up and help contributors get their
> contributions merged in.  And if the number and frequency of
> contributions from a contributor is so high that it is annoying to be
> always processing their patches, then it is a good sign that that
> contributor should be voted in as a Committer !

Apples and radios again.  Wikis are not source code repositories.


> It is more accurate to say that OOo did not make a distinction here
> between a project wiki and a community wiki.

It started as a public facing developer wiki, and the community jumped
in there and made use of the resource.  There are many issues that
this history caused... like no Language Namespaces, everything is in
Main which forced the use of Subpages to introduce some sanity to the
myriad of languages... the mix of developer and user content and so
on.  There is no doubt that there is a LOT of room for improvement,
but deleting all accounts?

Anyway, I've said my bit.  We're clearly on two different levels here :-P

C.

Mime
View raw message