quetz-mod_python-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Hinrichs - DM&T" <je...@dundeemt.com>
Subject Re: Was [Issues with "Session use with classes" wiki example.]
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:42:53 GMT
On 12/5/06, Martin Stoufer <MCStoufer@lbl.gov> wrote:
> There needs to be some formal vetting process where proposed pages are
> critically reviewed by the people in the know. So far I see this being
> Graham and Jim G**. This requires that some separation of the Wiki
> occurs soon. In one area, the qualified, valid, correct pages are stored
> allowing only 'sticky-note' updates and additive comments. The other is
> our sandbox where pages are thrashed on and discussed before they are
> stamped 'official'. I am in favor of discussing pages via the list. Too
> many unanswered comments on a page and you loose sight of the content
> flow and meaning.
>
> As an option:
> Leave it as a personal decision of the main developers to possibly copy
> those gold-quality pages onto the static documentation site.
>
> ** If there are other lurkers on the list who know mod_python
> inside&out, my apologies for not acknowledging you.
>
> Jorey Bump wrote:
> > Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> >> Anyone got any ideas about how we can run a semi informal review process
> >> on any major new additions. When a page has been up for a while just
> >> going
> >> in and making them change is reasonable, but if the person is in the
> >> process
> >> of still putting it together what is the best way of providing
> >> feedback. Is it
> >> just a matter of ensuring that a page isn't linked to in the wiki
> >> until people
> >> have had a chance to look over it and comment? Do we discuss it on the
> >> mailing list when there are issues, or put comments direct into pages?
> >
> > I think we'll experience growing pains while the wiki is in its
> > infancy. Rather than implement a moderation process, we should
> > probably let people add content until we get an idea of how it should
> > best be organized. The new posts are generating a number of
> > discussions that are actually helpful to the community at large, and
> > imposing a review process may discourage contributions. I think all
> > wikis eventually reach a point where access controls are tightened,
> > and eventually we're going to be spammed, anyway. In the meantime,
> > even correcting erroneous posts provides a foundation for adding new
> > content.
> >
> > Having said that, do we have any resident experts on MoinMoin access
> > controls?
>
> --
> * Martin C. Stoufer              *
> * DST/DIDC/ITG                   *
> * Lawrence Berkeley National Lab *
> * MS 50B-2239 510-486-8662       *
>
>
>
>


Perhaps -- and I'm just free thinking -- two main branches on the
wiki.  One branch would be unapproved/unreviewed articles, like
RoughDocs over on TG and then an official or blessed branch.  All the
new stuff from most contributors would go to the roughdocs area, then
once they are ok'd as good they could be moved to the blessed area?

-Jeff

Mime
View raw message