Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact community-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list community@apache.org Received: (qmail 38479 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 21:40:28 -0000 Received: from scotch.ics.uci.edu (128.195.24.168) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 21:40:28 -0000 Received: from cite.ics.uci.edu (cite.ics.uci.edu [128.195.38.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by scotch.ics.uci.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB2LeDaM026519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:40:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:40:28 -0800 From: Justin Erenkrantz Reply-To: Justin Erenkrantz To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [RFC] prototype committers list with links Message-ID: <120240000.1038865228@cite.ics.uci.edu> In-Reply-To: <3DEBD14C.3030201@apache.org> References: <3DEBACE8.98E7211E@Golux.Com> <3DEBB495.7010406@apache.org> <3DEBC0FB.C38437ED@Golux.Com> <74430000.1038863577@cite.ics.uci.edu> <3DEBD14C.3030201@apache.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0b9 (SunOS/SPARC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, SUBJECT_IS_LIST version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --On Monday, December 02, 2002 16:31:56 -0500 Sam Ruby wrote: > So, why not either (1) remove the anoncvs symbolic link, or (2) remove > the name from the avail file. Either action will cause these entries to > disappear from this generated page. > > Clearly, side files can be created to address this, but I find processes > such as these provide insightful perspectives into the way things are set > up that may motivate people to DoTheRightThing(TM). Well, the reason I wouldn't do that is that I don't want to prohibit people from checking them out (or, gasp!, committing a change to it). My point is that those repositories aren't active in any sense of the word. But, I don't think we should stop people from browsing them if they encounter it somehow. But, I think it clutters the output of the pages. (Perhaps with the private repos omitted, it may not be as cluttered.) > The visual clues are not overwhelming, and at the Town Hall we heard some > say that they were not aware that there was such a thing as ASF > membership. As I understand it from discussions with a number of people > at ApacheCon, the overall goal is to get everyone who both "gets it" and > appears likely to be sticking around for a while to become a member. > Perhaps, this will provide a subtle push. Perhaps, but I think raising the level of awareness by committers about the presence of members can be done in other ways. To me, it just looks like we're creating a distinction where it might not be beneficial to have one. Yet, it's not a big deal. I'm just not sure I'd do it that way if I were doing it. "Best damn moose turd pie." -- justin