16 Mar
2010
16 Mar
'10
10:22 a.m.
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
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.
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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
16 Mar
16 Mar
10:51 a.m.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> 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."
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.
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.
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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Guillaume Lerouge
Product Manager - XWiki SAS
Skype: wikibc
Twitter: glerouge
http://guillaumelerouge.com/
11:02 a.m.
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with
them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not
strictly defined" if we agree.
For the first one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the pb
with one is that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO)
there's the one I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind
of metric is that you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's
why I don't like strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative
commit" but then you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy
for a human to judge if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide
together to remove someone from the list if they judge that the company is not
participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be listed.
So it would work like this:
* a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed
* after some time the company doesn't participate anymore
* at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do
with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone
can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
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."
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.
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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks a lot
> -Vincent
11:16 a.m.
On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest
loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :)
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with
them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not
strictly defined" if we agree. 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."
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.
WDYT? For the first one, if we really want a definition
(I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly
enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit
every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code
reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this
case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define
"significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is
active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list
if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be
listed.
Well, we're (True) Open Source, we're Not Evil, let's trust the community.
So it would work like this:
* a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed
* after some time the company doesn't participate anymore
* at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do
with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone
can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
> 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.
>>
>> 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
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
11:37 a.m.
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Yep :)
Thanks
-Vincent
On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yes I hate LOCs too.
# of Active committers is enough for me. WDYT?
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest
loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :) Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with
them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not
strictly defined" if we agree. 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."
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.
WDYT? For the first
one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is
that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one
I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that
you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like
strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then
you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge
if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone
from the list if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't
deserve to be listed.
Well, we're (True) Open Source, we're Not Evil, let's trust the community.
So it would work like this:
* a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed
* after some time the company doesn't participate anymore
* at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do
with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone
can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
> 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.
>>
>> 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
11:43 a.m.
On 03/16/2010 11:37 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yep :)
Thanks
-Vincent
>
>> So it would work like this:
>> * a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed
>> * after some time the company doesn't participate anymore
>> * at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide
what to do with its listing
>>
>> In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and
anyone can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get
started.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
+1.
On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yes I hate LOCs too.
# of Active committers is enough for me. WDYT?
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest
loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :) Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net> 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."
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.
WDYT?
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with
them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not
strictly defined" if we agree. For the first one, if we really want a definition
(I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly
enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit
every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code
reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this
case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define
"significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is
active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list
if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be
listed.
Well, we're (True) Open Source, we're Not Evil, let's trust the community.
11:21 a.m.
It's written down for all the world to see.
+1
I say let's go with it and if issues arise we will deal with them.
XWiki committers continue to monitor it to remove spam, fix problems, do gardening
"gardening" :D Almost that time of year.
Caleb
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with
them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not
strictly defined" if we agree.
For the first one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the
pb with one is that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO)
there's the one I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind
of metric is that you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's
why I don't like strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative
commit" but then you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy
for a human to judge if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide
together to remove someone from the list if they judge that the company is not
participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be listed.
So it would work like this:
* a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed
* after some time the company doesn't participate anymore
* at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do
with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone
can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
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."
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.
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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks a lot
> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
11:11 a.m.
On 03/16/2010 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
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
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." 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 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?
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki
Committers." => Why does a company have to be active continuously?
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).
> 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
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
11:35 a.m.
Hi Sergiu,
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 03/16/2010 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
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.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
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
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." 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 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 
12:10 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:11, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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
+1 to reuse committers rules, it's the same thing for me.
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 03/16/2010 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net> 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
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 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?
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki
Committers." => Why does a company have to be active continuously?
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).
> 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
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
12:17 p.m.
ok I've now reworked the page based on the feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol 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
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.
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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
12:34 p.m.
+1
Guillaume
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
ok I've now reworked the page based on the
feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
--
Guillaume Lerouge
Product Manager - XWiki SAS
Skype: wikibc
Twitter: glerouge
http://guillaumelerouge.com/
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
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.
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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2:56 p.m.
+1.
JV.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
ok I've now reworked the page based on the
feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol 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
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.
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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
5:01 p.m.
+1
Thanks,
Marius
Vincent Massol wrote:
ok I've now reworked the page based on the
feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol 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
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.
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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs 
5:42 p.m.
as a non committer, I agree with caleb: go on and let's manage incoming
issues...
seems ok
Pascal
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1
Thanks,
Marius
Vincent Massol wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
ok I've now reworked the page based on the
feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
18 Mar
18 Mar
9:56 a.m.
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol 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
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.
Here's my +1 :)
-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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
10:13 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] XWiki.org governance (take 2) (RESULT)
Vote Result:
+1:
- Vincent
- Jean-Vincent
- Caleb
- Guillaume
- Marius
- Pascal
Seem to agree:
- Sergiu
- Thomas
- Denis
Thus the vote is passed. I'm moving the page to
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol 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
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.
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.
Thanks a lot
-Vincent
5299
days inactive
5301
days old
16 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Jean-Vincent Drean -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Pascal Voitot Dev -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol