8:21 p.m.
For those who haven't noticed, I've been jumping around on the wiki
trying to spruce the place up a bit. I have noticed that the Marketing
section is one of few that doesn't have a group (eg. MarketingGroup). I
also think a PressContacts page might be appropriate. Also, with
meetings starting to take form, a section with meeting information and a
spot for meeting notes might also be good. I would like to bring the
Marketing section up to spec with some of the other projects. I just
wanted to ask before I went about making such an addition as a group
page. Any objections/opinions/suggestions?
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
8:28 p.m.
Great idea I never thought about it. I think we might be able to
consolidate ideas on there maybe?
--
Regards
Marc Wiriadisastra
For those who haven't noticed, I've been jumping around on
the wiki
trying to spruce the place up a bit. I have noticed that the Marketing
section is one of few that doesn't have a group (eg. MarketingGroup). I
also think a PressContacts page might be appropriate. Also, with
meetings starting to take form, a section with meeting information and a
spot for meeting notes might also be good. I would like to bring the
Marketing section up to spec with some of the other projects. I just
wanted to ask before I went about making such an addition as a group
page. Any objections/opinions/suggestions?
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
8:48 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 20:21 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
For those who haven't noticed, I've been jumping around on
the wiki
trying to spruce the place up a bit. I have noticed that the
Marketing
section is one of few that doesn't have a group (eg. MarketingGroup).
Like an EditGroup equivalent? Well, yeah I guess we could create this
I
also think a PressContacts page might be appropriate. Also, with
Yes, pointing to press(a)fedoraproject.org
meetings starting to take form, a section with meeting information
and
a
spot for meeting notes might also be good. I would like to bring the
Sounds like a good idea, which reminds me we need another meeting
Marketing section up to spec with some of the other projects. I
just
wanted to ask before I went about making such an addition as a group
page. Any objections/opinions/suggestions?
Go ahead and create what's necessary, then tell us to review it too
--
Colin Charles, http://www.bytebot.net/
10:58 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 20:21 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
For those who haven't noticed, I've been jumping around on
the wiki
trying to spruce the place up a bit. I have noticed that the Marketing
section is one of few that doesn't have a group (eg. MarketingGroup).
I don't know if the FooGroup is a standard. EditGroup, yes. For FDP,
we have wiki/DocsProject/ ... which is a little informal but works.
We have wiki/Marketing/ and you could use that, unless you see
MarketingGroup as an "about us" kind of page. So that Marketing would
be focused on marketing, and MarketingGroup (or MarketingProject) would
be focused on who does marketing.
BTW, the greater scheme in the Future, I see Marketing as being a stand-
alone project under the Fedora umbrella. Doesn't mean we have to call
it the Marketing Project.
I
also think a PressContacts page might be appropriate. Also, with
meetings starting to take form, a section with meeting information and a
spot for meeting notes might also be good. I would like to bring the
Marketing section up to spec with some of the other projects. I just
wanted to ask before I went about making such an addition as a group
page. Any objections/opinions/suggestions?
Yeah, I noticed you making changes, good for you.
Another advantage of having everything under one WikiName/ is that you
can watch for changes as a wildcard group. I don't know if this works
if we have Marketing/ and MarketingGroup/ and so forth. Might make
sense to pick one (whatever we have) and run with that.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
12:16 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 08:58 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 20:21 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
> For those who haven't noticed, I've been jumping around on the wiki
> trying to spruce the place up a bit. I have noticed that the Marketing
> section is one of few that doesn't have a group (eg. MarketingGroup).
I don't know if the FooGroup is a standard. EditGroup, yes. For FDP,
we have wiki/DocsProject/ ... which is a little informal but works.
We have wiki/Marketing/ and you could use that, unless you see
MarketingGroup as an "about us" kind of page. So that Marketing would
be focused on marketing, and MarketingGroup (or MarketingProject) would
be focused on who does marketing.
N-Man explained to me (on IRC) that FooGroup has special meaning in
MoinMoin, so I withdraw my concerns. Otherwise, everything I wrote is
what he has in mind, so we are all good.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
12:55 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:16 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
N-Man explained to me (on IRC) that FooGroup has special meaning in
MoinMoin, so I withdraw my concerns. Otherwise, everything I wrote is
what he has in mind, so we are all good.
The Group page basically is for ACL assignment. It doesn't really serve
any other purpose. So unless you want to restrict your marketing pages
to be edited by an even smaller group of people (those that are in
EditGroup _and_ MarketingGroup) and you want to have an admin level
person maintain ACLs on all your page, I would recommend against
creating this page.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
1:01 p.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:16 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>N-Man explained to me (on IRC) that FooGroup has special meaning in
>MoinMoin, so I withdraw my concerns. Otherwise, everything I wrote is
>what he has in mind, so we are all good.
>
>
The Group page basically is for ACL assignment. It doesn't really serve
any other purpose. So unless you want to restrict your marketing pages
to be edited by an even smaller group of people (those that are in
EditGroup _and_ MarketingGroup) and you want to have an admin level
person maintain ACLs on all your page, I would recommend against
creating this page.
Although there are no plans to start using ACLs for Marketing at this
time, the page can serve other purposes, including just tracking who is
contributing. There may come a time when having ACLs is needed, and it
would be easier to already have a list ready if that day comes.
MoinMoin might eventually also have other features built around its
group tracking, and such a page could also help in that case. The real
purpose in having the page now is simply for tracking contributors. The
use of the *Group name simply allows for future implementation of group
features.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
1:24 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:01 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
Although there are no plans to start using ACLs for Marketing at
this
time, the page can serve other purposes, including just tracking who is
contributing. There may come a time when having ACLs is needed, and it
would be easier to already have a list ready if that day comes.
MoinMoin might eventually also have other features built around its
group tracking, and such a page could also help in that case. The real
purpose in having the page now is simply for tracking contributors. The
use of the *Group name simply allows for future implementation of group
features.
Well the list of names can easily be cut/copied to the Group age when
needed, and every page would have to be touched anyway to add the ACL.
It wouldn't be an easy transition no matter how you look at it.
I'm more worried about using a reserved page structure for a
non-accounted for usage. Lets say that MoinMoin does do some added
functionality to the Group pages that we're not expecting and messes w/
what we have there. Honestly I think it would be best to avoid using it
for now.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
1:49 p.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:01 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>Although there are no plans to start using ACLs for Marketing at this
>time, the page can serve other purposes, including just tracking who is
>contributing. There may come a time when having ACLs is needed, and it
>would be easier to already have a list ready if that day comes.
>MoinMoin might eventually also have other features built around its
>group tracking, and such a page could also help in that case. The real
>purpose in having the page now is simply for tracking contributors. The
>use of the *Group name simply allows for future implementation of group
>features.
>
>
Well the list of names can easily be cut/copied to the Group age when
needed, and every page would have to be touched anyway to add the ACL.
It wouldn't be an easy transition no matter how you look at it.
I'm more worried about using a reserved page structure for a
non-accounted for usage. Lets say that MoinMoin does do some added
functionality to the Group pages that we're not expecting and messes w/
what we have there. Honestly I think it would be best to avoid using it
for now.
I understand your concerns, but I do not share them. The *Group page
structure is defined, but not reserved. MoinMoin will not change
existing behavior of the *Group pages. Having the page existing as a
measure for future ease does not risk brokenness. As for ACL usage, the
only changes that would be necessary would be the addition of ACLs to
the *Group page to prevent tampering, and then the addition of ACLs to
pages that are to be restricted. It would not be necessary to touch
every page. If ever ACLs are used, it will likely only be applied to a
small subset of pages. By having this page now, we allow the creation
of controlled pages within minutes, and without risk. Your concerns are
certainly warranted, and the thought you have given to it is certainly
appreciated, but I have reviewed the issues and feel that this is the
best way to go. If someone wants to overrule me on this, I welcome
their comments, but I really don't see this as a problem. I just have a
habit of preparing for the future, and think this is how to do it.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
2:51 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:49 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
I understand your concerns, but I do not share them. The *Group
page
structure is defined, but not reserved. MoinMoin will not change
existing behavior of the *Group pages.
Ah but you had mentioned that future may bring more functionality to the
Group pages...
Having the page existing as a
measure for future ease does not risk brokenness.
Yes and no... I'm just of the mind set that using things out of scope
tends to get you burned. *shrug*
As for ACL usage, the
only changes that would be necessary would be the addition of ACLs to
the *Group page to prevent tampering, and then the addition of ACLs to
pages that are to be restricted. It would not be necessary to touch
every page.
Right, I meant every page to be limited must be touched, and touched by
an admin.
If ever ACLs are used, it will likely only be applied to a
small subset of pages. By having this page now, we allow the creation
of controlled pages within minutes, and without risk. Your concerns are
certainly warranted, and the thought you have given to it is certainly
appreciated, but I have reviewed the issues and feel that this is the
best way to go. If someone wants to overrule me on this, I welcome
their comments, but I really don't see this as a problem. I just have a
habit of preparing for the future, and think this is how to do it.
I will leave it up to others to decide as well. Your views and mine are
now of public matter (: Neither are incorrect in their own rights, it's
just a matter of opinion.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
6839
days inactive
6839
days old
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Colin Charles -
Jesse Keating -
Karsten Wade -
Marc Wiriadisastra -
Patrick W. Barnes