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 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:20:41 GMT
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:03, Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com> wrote:
> 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.

This is pretty much JCA regime that was in place under Sun and Oracle.
 On the User Doc side, it hindered not encouraged doc contributions...
thus the move to a low entry barrier community Wiki (among other
things that we tried to implement).  Accepting patches and fixes via a
bug reporting system is great if you've got the people working the
bugs and managing the input in a timely manner..... otherwise you
simply have a bottleneck in one or two people.  The same goes for the
MediaWiki Flagged Revisions (which is installed on the existing OOo
Wiki by the way, just not in use)... without a team of reviewers, the
edits are never approved, and community contributions dry up very
quickly.

Also you really need to differentiate between Wiki documentation which
is Community developed... and Application help which is/was treated
like the source code (and required a JCA to work on).

Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore.  I'm stepping out of
this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
documentation, including the OOo Wiki.

Clayton

Mime
View raw message