ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Rosser <nros...@solveda.com>
Subject Re: OFBiz.org site: easier navigation to Service Providers and End Users
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:31:51 GMT
I didn't do an exhaustive search but the Active-MQ project has a link to 


This is an "internal" doc -- not an external link.

Note that they also have a "Team" link which lists all active Committers 
and Contributors.

And also a "Projects using" link which lists a bunch of projects that 
include the technology.

I haven't specifically found anything that lists the equivalent of 
"service providers" but still maintain that having this is critical for 
an organization considering adopting OFBiz for a bet-your-business 
software solution.

Carousel: all good points being raised -- showing key benefits and 
client usage would be a nice upgrade.

On 2/20/2014 5:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Inline...
> Le 20/02/2014 10:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> I guess that you could create a patch with the proposed changes and 
>> then create a Jira ticket, then start a voting thread in the dev list.
> If there are changes in wiki, maybe better to simply discuss them here 
> (or in a Jira indeed to keep things focused) about changes to do and 
> get a consensus on what to do and not. Then any wiki contributor could 
> do it...
>> Before we go into it, I anticipate here some conditions that I think 
>> are important:
>> * I would like to review examples from other ASF projects doing the 
>> same; in this thread it was mentioned that several other projects are 
>> doing the same; I don't have time to research but if a volunteer 
>> could provide a list of projects and URLs of such documents I would 
>> be happy to review them
>> * remove from the documents any links to external sites that are not 
>> strictly following the ASF trademark guidelines; this includes all 
>> the sites containing the OFBiz name in the domain (e.g. ofbiz.info)
> I totally second this!
>> * the link from the OFBiz website should have enough information to 
>> clearly show that the referenced documents are not under the control 
>> of the PMC, but instead they are "open" documents at the disposal of 
>> the public
> I think it's enough to put the disclaimer in the concerned pages
>> * the same disclaimer is added at the top of each page
>> * the documents open in a different tab (i.e. they use the "target" 
>> attribute)
>> * they are not added to the top navigation bar; my preference would 
>> be to add them to the body of the index page, in this paragraph:
>> "For answers to your questions you might find the following documents 
>> useful:
>>     • Documentation
>>     • Documentation - Project Overview
>>     • Documentation - Getting Started"
> I believe we could add 2 links in the Resources & Tools section (or 
> create a new section?) in the main page as long as there are 
> disclaimers in the concerned pages. The goal is to make these links 
> obvious to users
>> * we define clear rules on the format and content of these pages: 
>> define the column and content that each field can contain, the order 
>> of the entries, define if there are minimal requirements for 
>> publishing a company/site, define the amount of text each field can 
>> have, where external links can be defined
> +1
> Jacques
>> Jacopo
>> On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nick Rosser <nrosser@solveda.com> wrote:
>>> With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the 
>>> originally proposed change?
>>> Nick
>>> On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for 
>>>> violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it 
>>>> would not penalize other sites...
>>>> This done we could block the page for users who would like to 
>>>> exceed their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how 
>>>> that works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page 
>>>> access)
>>>> Jacques
>>>> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux 
>>>>>> <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>>>>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and 
>>>>>> must be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its 
>>>>>> publication.
>>>>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have

>>>>>> clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can 
>>>>>> add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only 
>>>>>> companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there

>>>>>> are several companies in the page that mention the term 
>>>>>> "contributors" even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz 
>>>>>> PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is monitoring 
>>>>>> for violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see

>>>>>> pages that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially 
>>>>>> endorsed by the project.
>>>>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF 
>>>>> is clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link 
>>>>> them from the main site.
>>>>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the 
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers

>>>>> page
>>>>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep

>>>>> independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top 
>>>>> of the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we 
>>>>> will certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>>>>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own 
>>>>> decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible. 
>>>>> Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by 
>>>>> someone and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to 
>>>>> separate contributors from committers in this column.
>>>>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
>>>>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW, 
>>>>> Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed) 
>>>>> and committers in this list?
>>>>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided 
>>>>> it  was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of 
>>>>> separating concerns.
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues

>>>>>>> on these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>>>>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely 
>>>>>> publish this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the

>>>>>> PMC has to endorse them or fix them.
>>>>>> Jacopo

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message