openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: Access to wiki
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2011 18:17:32 GMT
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> I have a question about your proposed cookie cutter.  How much of what is currently
on OOOUSER is therefore not appropriate there, under your criteria?  OOOUSER is a public,
user-editable Wiki is it not?  The only requirement is for a Wiki Account to be established.
>

I'm assuming that we want move entirely to a single wiki
infrastructure, all MediaWiki.  In that case, OOOUSER would be
sunsetted and anything needing preservation would be migrated over
(probably manually).

Whether we manage "core" doc pages, etc., via segregation in different
wiki spaces, subsites, or even on a page-by-page basis remains to be
determined.

IMHO, we should get away from the mistaken notion that there is a
"project wiki" and a "community wiki".  It is all community.  And
we're all part of that community.  We should be talking about the
content and what portions of it need to be authoritative, compatible
licensed and subject to PPMC approval.

This is similar to how we handle code.  Anyone can submit a patch.  It
can be of poor quality or with an incompatible license attached.  In
that case we ignore it, or give feedback to the developer, but it
doesn't make it into SVN or into a release.

We treat the project website in the same way.  Anyone can contribute,
but there is RTC for non-committer contributions and CRT for
committers.

I think for the wiki we want something similar, at least for core
areas that the PPMC decides to exercise oversight over.  We can debate
what areas these are, but I assume areas like core documentation are
included.

There may be other areas where we decide there will be no PPMC
oversight on content, beyond enforcing the site terms, including the
use of the Apache 2.0 license.

> Secondly, just in case it is not clear, there is a particular requirement (at Apache)
for the careful and respectful treatment of third-party contributed material.  Think of it
as third-party Category A software that is being relied upon in a distribution (for the principle,
not whether we are actually doing that).  This influences how derivative works are made.
 In particular, any requirements in terms of notices and especially copyright notices need
to be satisfied.  For Apache, I assume this principle applies to all works that an ALv2 can
cover, not just software code.
>

Right.

> Finally, leaving that material at an http://*.openoffice.org address where the contribution
appears retains such material "as-contributed."  Moving it to an apache.org site, especially
with additional conditions and restrictions, is not something for which we might wish to claim
permission for doing.
>

You are making the distinction between re-hosting (different server
with same URL) versus moving content (different URL). This is an
important distinction.  It is important because historical lax
attention to IP on the wiki has resulted in content where it is
unclear what license applies to it.

> I recently saw this with regard to the civility and ethical position of Apache on such
matters
> < http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201107.mbox/%3c314DD6CC-79A3-4F82-9DBD-C569A23A45E9@gbiv.com%3e>:
>
>  "At Apache, all contributions are voluntary.  We do not accept code
>  from copyright owners who don't want us to have it, even if we have
>  the legal right to adopt it for other reasons."
>
> The thread there expands on this with regard to a particular situation, one I trust we
do not encounter [;<).
>
> We can only assume those contributors wanted OpenOffice.org to have it.  We (when it
is not the Oracle licensed-to-Apache material we are talking about) need to be respectful
of how Apache stewardship continues to satisfy their desires in the matter.
>

For some definition of "OpenOffice.org", yes ;-)

This is one reason why I want to have this cleared up for all future
contributions.  We can't change the past.  Things that are ambiguous
remain ambiguous, unless we can track down and discuss with each
contributor.


>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 07:49
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Access to wiki
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Eike Rathke <ooo@erack.de> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Saturday, 2011-08-06 21:05:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>>  It is much more than just 2 categories, official or unofficial doc.
>>> Looking around I see things like:
>>>
>>> a) Official doc (current)
>>> b) Official doc (obsolete)
>>> c) Doc in progress (active)
>>> d) Doc in progress (abandoned)
>>> e) Project planning docs
>>> f)  Pages related directly to the development of the product, e.g.,
>>> build instructions, architecture notes, coding standards, etc.
>>> g) Marketing and event related pages
>>> h) Pages related to the governance of the project, e.g., minutes from
>>> engineering steering committee meetings, etc.
>>> i) Biography/home pages for project volunteers
>>> j) And probably many other categories
>>
>
> I just noticed this page, listing the page categories in the wiki.
> This is another way of looking at the range of content:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACategoryTree&target=MainIndex&mode=categories&dotree=Show+tree
>
>
>> Given this list I see the following categories:
>>
>> A) Apache OOo committers only, with comments/discussion enabled for
>>   everyone with a wiki account.
>> B) Contributed 3rd party material, unsure which edit rights those should
>>   be assigned.
>> C) Community wiki editable for everyone with a wiki account under AL2 or
>>   a permissive license.
>
>
> I'm not sure I see the difference between B and C?  When a 3rd party
> edits the wiki then they are contributing 3rd party material.
>
>> D) Museum, read-only pages that can be revived and moved to one of the
>>   other categories.
>> E) Dump. Pages that were contributed under licenses that are not
>>   permissive in an Apache project.
>>
>> Material of categories:
>>
>> A: a, e, f, h
>> B: TBD, e.g. the ODFAuthors documentation
>> C: c, g, i, j
>> D: b, d
>> E: TBD
>>
>>
>>> 1) Migrate the wiki off of Oracle and on to Apache machines.  But
>>> pending further consensus, keep it read-only except to committers.
>>>
>>> 2) At the same time, make the Oracle-hosted version be read-only.
>>>
>>> 3) Figure out the minimal number of changes necessary for the PPMC to
>>> have consensus that Oracle can shut down their server and switch the
>>> domain to point to the Apache version. This might include things like
>>> branding, license, policies, appointment/confirmation of
>>> admins/moderators, etc.
>>>
>>> 4) Prepare notification to community about the new website.
>>>
>>> 5) Go live, along with notification to community
>>
>> Sounds like a plan. Though for 1) consensus should be reached quickly to
>> not put contributors off.
>>
>
> Agreed.  Right now there is almost no wiki edits.  But we'll need the
> have the wiki ready in time for the expected increase in activity
> around the first AOOo release.  So that suggests we have a few months.
>
>>  Eike
>>
>> --
>>  PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>>  Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message