9:51 a.m.
One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete
old users. I would like permission from both teams to do delete all
users who
A) aren't in the edit group
B) aren't watching any pages
Presently there's 9,900 accounts on there. Only 600 of which are
actually in the edit group. Since having an account, without edit or
watching abilities is basically useless I'd like to just get rid of
those accounts. Nothing would prevent those people from signing up
again if they chose to do so.
This is kind of a drastic measure, I realize, but I think its needed.
Thoughts?
-Mike
9:55 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to
delete
old users. I would like permission from both teams to do delete all
users who
A) aren't in the edit group
B) aren't watching any pages
Presently there's 9,900 accounts on there. Only 600 of which are
actually in the edit group. Since having an account, without edit or
watching abilities is basically useless I'd like to just get rid of
those accounts. Nothing would prevent those people from signing up
again if they chose to do so.
This is kind of a drastic measure, I realize, but I think its needed.
Thoughts?
I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of
pages.
-sv
10 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets
of
pages.
Really? What sets?
I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't
covered by the CLA.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
11:48 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of
> pages.
Really? What sets?
I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't
covered by the CLA.
I think some of the pages that are being used to request changes are
like this. For instance:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EditGroupQueue
I don't know if there are others pages like this; I do know that
CVSSyncNeeded has since been moved into a process based around Bugzilla.
-Toshio
1:13 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of
> pages.
Really? What sets?
I reserve the right to be wrong :)
I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that
wasn't
covered by the CLA.
I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through
all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition?
-sv
1:23 p.m.
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
>
>> I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of
>> pages.
>>
> Really? What sets?
>
>
I reserve the right to be wrong :)
> I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't
> covered by the CLA.
>
I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through
all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition?
-sv
And really, the spirit of this is "We're having a problem so we're
getting rid of accounts. If you want to, sign back up" So, in theory,
we're not preventing anyone from doing anything, at worst they'll just
have to sign up again.
-Mike
1:28 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:23 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:00 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 10:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I thought we got rid of the EditGroup requirement for certain sets of
>>> pages.
>>>
>> Really? What sets?
>>
>>
>
> I reserve the right to be wrong :)
>
>
>> I didn't realize we had or wanted any content on fp.o/wiki that wasn't
>> covered by the CLA.
>>
>
> I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through
> all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition?
>
> -sv
>
>
And really, the spirit of this is "We're having a problem so we're
getting rid of accounts. If you want to, sign back up" So, in theory,
we're not preventing anyone from doing anything, at worst they'll just
have to sign up again.
I agree, though I think Karsten has a point. Let people know it'll
happen.
-sv
1:22 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:13 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping
through
all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition?
You are just a few steps ahead, that is all. I got the lawyer-based
permission and guidelines for using a click-through CLA for the Wiki.
When that is setup, we can stop using EditGroup for the site-wide ACLs.
When ... uh, whenever we get to it. I feel guilty every time I see an
addition to EditGroup, but this one is a little lower on the current
priorities. Still, what needs to be done is:
* Click-through page enabled for new users -- must check "Agree" and
then submit the form.
* Click-through page is (probably) an Include() of the CLA contents
itself -- not very proc intensive to do that, since people only see that
page when they create their account.
* Confirm that ACLs for special areas (Docs/) are working.
Anything else? Other than tell people and celebrate?
The dividing line between "click-through is OK" and "need to
GPG-sign"
is if the user has the ability to put content directly into a content
storage system from where it goes into a package (then into an ISO.)
So, we can leave Docs/Beats/ open to click-through CLAers because that
content is edited before going into CVS (and a package), all done by
people who have signed the CLA with a GPG key. This is analogous to
patches and such that come in via mailing lists and bugzilla. The
special locations such as Docs/ are Wiki-based publishing points, so
Docs Project contributor guidelines come into play.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
10:25 p.m.
Karsten Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:13 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through
> all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition?
>
You are just a few steps ahead, that is all. I got the lawyer-based
permission and guidelines for using a click-through CLA for the Wiki.
When that is setup, we can stop using EditGroup for the site-wide ACLs.
When ... uh, whenever we get to it. I feel guilty every time I see an
addition to EditGroup, but this one is a little lower on the current
priorities. Still, what needs to be done is:
* Click-through page enabled for new users -- must check "Agree" and
then submit the form.
* Click-through page is (probably) an Include() of the CLA contents
itself -- not very proc intensive to do that, since people only see that
page when they create their account.
* Confirm that ACLs for special areas (Docs/) are working.
Anything else? Other than tell people and celebrate?
The dividing line between "click-through is OK" and "need to
GPG-sign"
is if the user has the ability to put content directly into a content
storage system from where it goes into a package (then into an ISO.)
So, we can leave Docs/Beats/ open to click-through CLAers because that
content is edited before going into CVS (and a package), all done by
people who have signed the CLA with a GPG key. This is analogous to
patches and such that come in via mailing lists and bugzilla. The
special locations such as Docs/ are Wiki-based publishing points, so
Docs Project contributor guidelines come into play.
FYI All: I did a test on this this weekend and my page save was about
17 seconds, a pretty significant difference. So here's the plan.
1) Grab a list of all the users to be removed (Users not in EditGroup
and not watching any pages)
2) Send a mass email of notification of removal and why
3) Remove users (will make a backup)
4) Enjoy our much faster but still slow save pages.
-Mike
9:57 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to
delete
old users. I would like permission from both teams to do delete all
users who
A) aren't in the edit group
B) aren't watching any pages
Presently there's 9,900 accounts on there. Only 600 of which are
actually in the edit group. Since having an account, without edit or
watching abilities is basically useless I'd like to just get rid of
those accounts. Nothing would prevent those people from signing up
again if they chose to do so.
This is kind of a drastic measure, I realize, but I think its needed.
Thoughts are:
* When we move to the click-through CLA, would we be able to force the
9300 users to click-through?
* Would we want to? That would encourage people to agree to something
without knowing about it.
* So, if we are never going to push a click-through on those accounts,
they will have to be re-created anyway for a user to actually gain edit
privs.
* However, many people probably signed up thinking they could edit, then
learned they couldn't.
* People might be pissed if they got vaporized without some word about
it.
Therefore ....
1. Send an announcement (f-announce-l) that we are doing an account
audit and cleaning:
* All account without watches and/or edit privs will be removed
* The UserName shall be purged, so it is available again later
* Link to page with more explanation.
2. Can we post for ... 24 hours? 48 hours? a short announcement
everywhere on the Wiki? Change the theme or something so there is a
notice that points to a page explaining the above.
Otherwise, sounds like a wise idea to me.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
12:36 p.m.
On 4/5/07, Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com> wrote:
1. Send an announcement (f-announce-l) that we are doing an account
audit and cleaning:
* All account without watches and/or edit privs will be removed
* The UserName shall be purged, so it is available again later
* Link to page with more explanation.
2. Can we post for ... 24 hours? 48 hours? a short announcement
everywhere on the Wiki? Change the theme or something so there is a
notice that points to a page explaining the above.
Soulds like a good plan.
+1
--
Thomas Chung
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung
7:39 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 07:57 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
Therefore ....
1. Send an announcement (f-announce-l) that we are doing an account
audit and cleaning:
* All account without watches and/or edit privs will be removed
* The UserName shall be purged, so it is available again later
* Link to page with more explanation.
2. Can we post for ... 24 hours? 48 hours? a short announcement
everywhere on the Wiki? Change the theme or something so there is a
notice that points to a page explaining the above.
Otherwise, sounds like a wise idea to me.
Can I be a stick in the mud for a sec, and suggest that we send the
email straight to the recipients? I know list posting is faster and
easier, but I fear we are relying on f-announce-l for things that should
be handled personally with account-holders. The reply-to should be set
to a bit-bucket, with a statement to that effect in an end note.
Many of these 9,000+ accounts are obviously going to be from people who
aren't subscribed to f-announce-l, and therefore we aren't really
playing nice by announcing there. When my account changes with any Web
presence, they send me a "personal" email; we should do the same.
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
9:18 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Many of these 9,000+ accounts are obviously going to be from people
who
aren't subscribed to f-announce-l, and therefore we aren't really
playing nice by announcing there. When my account changes with any Web
presence, they send me a "personal" email; we should do the same.
I think this is how I would prefer it. We might have a higher retake
rate but we'll probably have fewer complaints.
-Mike
10:05 a.m.
Hi!
Mike McGrath schrieb:
One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to
delete
old users. [...]
I'd like to suggest another one: remove old Meeting logs from the wiki
and place them somewhere else. Searching for a string in the wiki takes
longer and longer every month and often finds a lots of old cruft from
old meeting logs.
There are so many old summaries and logs in the wiki from differnet
groups like Ambassadors, Board, EPEL, FESCo, QA, ..., and it gets more
and more every moths for a IMHO small gain. Maybe simply sending the
stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the wiki
would be more then enough?
CU
thl
1:14 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Maybe simply sending the
stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the wiki
would be more then enough?
With a few meetings excepted, that is what we have done in FDSCo from
the start. It saves steps and is easy. Sounds like it might be a good
policy for all.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
7:36 a.m.
Karsten Wade schrieb:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Maybe simply sending the
> stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the wiki
> would be more then enough?
With a few meetings excepted, that is what we have done in FDSCo from
the start.
I started to do it for like that for EPEL one week ago.
It saves steps and is easy.
+1
Sounds like it might be a good policy for all.
+1 -- how has the authority to issue such a policy?
CU
thl
11:33 p.m.
On Saturday 07 April 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Karsten Wade schrieb:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Maybe simply sending the
>> stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the wiki
>> would be more then enough?
>
,,,
+1 -- how has the authority to issue such a policy?
If nobody has any big reason against it, we can call it policy right now. We
just have to make sure that the people posting the meeting minutes are aware
of it. :-)
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
http://n-man.com/
LinkedIn:
http://linkedin.com/in/nman64
Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
--
3:34 a.m.
Le Sun, 8 Apr 2007 23:33:38 -0500,
"Patrick W. Barnes" <nman64(a)n-man.com> a écrit :
On Saturday 07 April 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Karsten Wade schrieb:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Maybe simply sending the
> >> stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the
> >> wiki would be more then enough?
> >
,,,
>
> +1 -- how has the authority to issue such a policy?
>
If nobody has any big reason against it, we can call it policy right
now. We just have to make sure that the people posting the meeting
minutes are aware of it. :-)
Ok then a new mailing list will be created I guess.
However, please reconsider sending a personal mail to every inactive
users. Sending a massive personal mail to people that did not checked a
box saying that they agree receiving mails from someone is considered as
spam. You could be reproached for this action.
Thomas Canniot
8:45 a.m.
Thomas Canniot wrote:
Le Sun, 8 Apr 2007 23:33:38 -0500,
"Patrick W. Barnes" <nman64(a)n-man.com> a écrit :
> On Saturday 07 April 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
>> Karsten Wade schrieb:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe simply sending the
>>>> stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the
>>>> wiki would be more then enough?
>>>>
> ,,,
>
>> +1 -- how has the authority to issue such a policy?
>>
>>
> If nobody has any big reason against it, we can call it policy right
> now. We just have to make sure that the people posting the meeting
> minutes are aware of it. :-)
>
>
Ok then a new mailing list will be created I guess.
The current mailing lists for each group should do just fine.
However, please reconsider sending a personal mail to every inactive
users. Sending a massive personal mail to people that did not checked a
box saying that they agree receiving mails from someone is considered as
spam. You could be reproached for this action.
Considered, going to do it anyway. This is literally a one time email
letting them know they're being removed (in other words no other emails
will be sent). I'm not going to mass delete users without letting them
know.
-Mike
6:43 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 10:34 +0200, Thomas Canniot wrote:
Le Sun, 8 Apr 2007 23:33:38 -0500,
"Patrick W. Barnes" <nman64(a)n-man.com> a écrit :
> On Saturday 07 April 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Karsten Wade schrieb:
> > > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:05 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >> Maybe simply sending the
> > >> stuff to a mailing list and placing a link to the archive in the
> > >> wiki would be more then enough?
> > >
> ,,,
> >
> > +1 -- how has the authority to issue such a policy?
> >
>
> If nobody has any big reason against it, we can call it policy right
> now. We just have to make sure that the people posting the meeting
> minutes are aware of it. :-)
>
Ok then a new mailing list will be created I guess.
However, please reconsider sending a personal mail to every inactive
users. Sending a massive personal mail to people that did not checked a
box saying that they agree receiving mails from someone is considered as
spam. You could be reproached for this action.
Not if the privacy policy[1] gets out of the draft state. The policy
explicitly states that we can use account information to contact the
account holder regarding their account. Was this held up in legal? If
not, what's the status?
= = = = =
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/PrivacyPolicy
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
7:40 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 19:43 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Not if the privacy policy[1] gets out of the draft state. The
policy
explicitly states that we can use account information to contact the
account holder regarding their account.
I think I've seen this in every privacy policy. Also seems courteous.
Was this held up in legal? If
not, what's the status?
I don't think I've heard anything about this since I asked on f-a-b last
October:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-October/msg0001...
IMO, this is something that Max (and Greg) need to get resolved.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
10:16 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
Mike McGrath schrieb:
> One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete
> old users. [...]
>
I'd like to suggest another one: remove old Meeting logs from the wiki
and place them somewhere else. Searching for a string in the wiki takes
longer and longer every month and often finds a lots of old cruft from
old meeting logs.
I have done a little research on this part and I don't think we'd get
much of a gain performance wise. It would clean things up a bit.
Interestingly, we have more users (9989) on Moin then we have pages (7214)
-Mike
10:36 a.m.
Mike McGrath schrieb:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Mike McGrath schrieb:
>> One way we could see immediate performance gain on the wiki is to delete
>> old users. [...]
> I'd like to suggest another one: remove old Meeting logs from the wiki
> and place them somewhere else. Searching for a string in the wiki takes
> longer and longer every month and often finds a lots of old cruft from
> old meeting logs.
I have done a little research on this part and I don't think we'd get
much of a gain performance wise. It would clean things up a bit.
Especially the latter thing seems important to me, as searching for
stuff in the wiki these days often afaics finds more often uninteresting
meeting minutes then then what you really look for.
Interestingly, we have more users (9989) on Moin then we have pages
(7214)
Well, but if we add logs from
- FESCo
- EPEL
- Ambassadors
- Docs
- FPC (those add two pages per meeting)
- some other projects I forget just now
each week then the number of pages will increase to much over time IMHO.
CU
thl
6222
days inactive
6229
days old
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org
22 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Karsten Wade -
Mike McGrath -
Patrick W. Barnes -
Paul W. Frields -
seth vidal -
Thomas Canniot -
Thomas Chung -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Toshio Kuratomi