Hi Sergiu, On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 03/16/2010 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers."
Well, it is a little bit more clear in the Committership page: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/Community/Committership : - becoming a committer once "enough" good patches are applied - becoming emeritus if a whole year passes without a commit
and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
This would be really easy to do with JGit reading a Git clone of our SVN repo + charting macro.
WDYT?
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
"or with a "Products" tab in some top level horizontal navigation" => I don't quite like it. How many products do we have? IMO, not many enough to require a top level entry. But I agree with the Download page.
We have only "Projects" and yes I think we want to be a forge. We have several projects: - XE - standalone rendering - standalone wysiwyg - XEclipse - XOO - XOffice - apps could also be considered projects (xwatch app, xem app, etc) - to be decided. Products would be commercial offerings only, a la JBoss. See http://jboss.org I'm also not sure we want this now but I wanted to leave the door open for the future. We could decide to remove it for now and rediscuss it later if the need arises.
"we require that the company/individual have at least one active Committer" => How about companies that invest a lot of money in *our* developers, sponsoring important, major features, like the Office importer, or the social dashboard? Or is the Supporters page enough for them?
I think so. Most of these companies are not selling services/packages on top of XWiki anyway so they couldn't go in that page.
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." => Why does a company have to be active continuously?
IMO for 2 reasons: 1) To show that it knows what it talks about and to ensure a good quality of knowledge? 2) To ensure that companies don't do a push to get a committer in to get listed and then that committer doesn't do any work thereafter But yes maybe the same rule as we have for committers is good enough (i.e. 1 year).
I would like to see stated somewhere (not necessarily on this page) that most committers are from XWiki SAS not because XWiki SAS pushes its employees as committers, but the other way around, because XWiki SAS wants to sustain the best contributors by offering them a job, so it pulls employees from the committers (or promising contributors, future committers).
I agree that on the Hall Of Fame page, we should have a column stating what company the person is from. Thanks -Vincent
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu