openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + (was branding)
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:13:49 GMT

On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote:

> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown<>  wrote:
>>> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
>>> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
>>> contributions are under AL2 license".  Would that not be sufficient?
>> The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is:
>> "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
>> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
>> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
>> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
>> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
>> I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on
>> the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit
>> page itself.  But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to
>> address:
>> 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance.  There may be some
>> allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed.
>>  If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that
>> proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to
>> the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever
>> language we use).  I'd gladly support that.
> I work on this and see what I can come up with.  I am no expert on this so it will be
a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to do.  We are much different that
the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be granted some working room.  I will start a new
thread as this one is getting to deep to manage.

Please put the word [PROPOSAL] in the subject.

I think it should be in the context of site issues as opposed to
issues, I think that may be the best dividing line for the boundary for this "working room".

>> 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki.  Today, for
>> example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
>> field is optional).  And the password can be as little as 1 character.
>>  (Yup, I just created an account with password="x").  With 15,000
>> zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
>> create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
>> identify a change to a particular person.
> I do not believe I have seen anyone state that there were not problems with the current
setup and improvements could not be made.  This is one area that we really need to look at
and fix.
>> [1]
>>>> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
>>>> remains high quality?
>>> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
>>> option for "as done" report.  It would only take a few minutes to do a quick
>>> review of those changes, an revert them if needed.
>> OK.  Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well?
> I am sure that is a possibility but if all that use the committers that use the wiki
get the reports then we should have that covered without adding to the ooo-commit list.
>>>> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
>>>> achieve these goals.  But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
>>>> another.
>>> Would the above listed work?
>> I think that takes us in the right direction.  Thanks.
> I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it belongs.

By trying you succeed.


> Andy

View raw message