From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 00:27:01 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:27:01 -0400 Subject: Copyright suggestion Message-ID: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nman64 at n-man.com Fri Sep 1 04:22:40 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:22:40 -0500 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200608312322.43406.nman64@n-man.com> On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:27, "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at > bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without > reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for > example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). > > Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and > others"? That's how most other content and code is marked > distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was > the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one > include? Yes on all counts. Any volunteers that have the necessary privileges? -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Fri Sep 1 08:09:47 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:09:47 -0700 Subject: Art Gallery and Plone Issues In-Reply-To: <44D232A4.6050302@redhat.com> References: <44D232A4.6050302@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157098188.29248.8.camel@erato.phig.org> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:30 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: > From what I can gather, Plone is installed and running, but it is > currently not widely used by Fedora for several big reasons: > > - It is questioned whether Plone is needed at all. What is the question here? This is the first I've heard about this. AFAIC, the issue of "do we need a CMS" is long ago settled. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 14:55:41 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:55:41 -0400 Subject: Art Gallery and Plone Issues In-Reply-To: <1157098188.29248.8.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <44D232A4.6050302@redhat.com> <1157098188.29248.8.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1157122541.3150.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 01:09 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:30 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: > > > From what I can gather, Plone is installed and running, but it is > > currently not widely used by Fedora for several big reasons: > > > > - It is questioned whether Plone is needed at all. > > What is the question here? This is the first I've heard about this. > AFAIC, the issue of "do we need a CMS" is long ago settled. Yeah, that's news to me too. We on Docs team definitely need it, we just don't have anyone in our subproject who can make it do the things we want. A glance at the archives will show up several instances where I asked for help with this, but I'm sure it's not as high a priority as other things like the buildsystem. I even tried to get some personnel resources from outside the Red Hat walls -- a contributor who I met at the Summit who said he had a person with the requisite skills. No word back, so I suppose I should try him again. It's one thing to simply install a CMS and put it on a web server. We have lots of people who can do that. It's quite another to actually USE one effectively to build a workflow and deploy the tools contributors need. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 14:56:37 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:56:37 -0400 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <200608312322.43406.nman64@n-man.com> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608312322.43406.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1157122597.3150.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 23:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:27, "Paul W. Frields" > wrote: > > On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at > > bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without > > reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for > > example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). > > > > Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and > > others"? That's how most other content and code is marked > > distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was > > the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one > > include? > > Yes on all counts. Any volunteers that have the necessary privileges? Sorry, I don't, or I would be happy to do it. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dimitris at glezos.com Fri Sep 1 15:09:36 2006 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:09:36 +0100 Subject: Art Gallery and Plone Issues In-Reply-To: <1157122541.3150.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44D232A4.6050302@redhat.com> <1157098188.29248.8.camel@erato.phig.org> <1157122541.3150.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44F84D30.2080708@glezos.com> O/H Paul W. Frields ??????: > On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 01:09 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: >> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:30 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: >> >>> From what I can gather, Plone is installed and running, but it is >>> currently not widely used by Fedora for several big reasons: >>> >>> - It is questioned whether Plone is needed at all. >> What is the question here? This is the first I've heard about this. >> AFAIC, the issue of "do we need a CMS" is long ago settled. > > Yeah, that's news to me too. We on Docs team definitely need it, we > just don't have anyone in our subproject who can make it do the things > we want. A glance at the archives will show up several instances where > I asked for help with this, but I'm sure it's not as high a priority as > other things like the buildsystem. I even tried to get some personnel > resources from outside the Red Hat walls -- a contributor who I met at > the Summit who said he had a person with the requisite skills. No word > back, so I suppose I should try him again. > > It's one thing to simply install a CMS and put it on a web server. We > have lots of people who can do that. It's quite another to actually USE > one effectively to build a workflow and deploy the tools contributors > need. +1. The CMS installation's priority should definitely be increased. As Paul said, we on docs team definitely need it. It may require a considerable amount of work, but it's a "do it once, enjoy it's fruits for a long time" work. -dim -- Dimitris Glezos Jabber ID: glezos at jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B http://dimitris.glezos.com/ "He who gives up functionality for ease of use loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous) -- From jonathansteffan at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 17:21:58 2006 From: jonathansteffan at gmail.com (Jonathan Steffan) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:21:58 -0600 Subject: Art Gallery and Plone Issues In-Reply-To: <44F84D30.2080708@glezos.com> References: <44D232A4.6050302@redhat.com> <1157098188.29248.8.camel@erato.phig.org> <1157122541.3150.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44F84D30.2080708@glezos.com> Message-ID: <44F86C36.9030403@gmail.com> Dimitris Glezos wrote: > O/H Paul W. Frields ??????: > >> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 01:09 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:30 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: >>> >>> >>>> From what I can gather, Plone is installed and running, but it is >>>> currently not widely used by Fedora for several big reasons: >>>> >>>> - It is questioned whether Plone is needed at all. >>>> >>> What is the question here? This is the first I've heard about this. >>> AFAIC, the issue of "do we need a CMS" is long ago settled. >>> >> Yeah, that's news to me too. We on Docs team definitely need it, we >> just don't have anyone in our subproject who can make it do the things >> we want. A glance at the archives will show up several instances where >> I asked for help with this, but I'm sure it's not as high a priority as >> other things like the buildsystem. I even tried to get some personnel >> resources from outside the Red Hat walls -- a contributor who I met at >> the Summit who said he had a person with the requisite skills. No word >> back, so I suppose I should try him again. >> >> It's one thing to simply install a CMS and put it on a web server. We >> have lots of people who can do that. It's quite another to actually USE >> one effectively to build a workflow and deploy the tools contributors >> need. >> > > +1. The CMS installation's priority should definitely be increased. As Paul > said, we on docs team definitely need it. > > It may require a considerable amount of work, but it's a "do it once, enjoy it's > fruits for a long time" work. > > -dim > I run the Fedora Unity zope/plone stuff. I have offered my help but have never gotten access to the ZMI and/or made any progress on expressing Fedora Unity has already learned many lessons about using Plone and what *not* to do. I also have been working to package plone-ldap which would be all that is needed to get Plone 2.5 with PAS authenticating from LDAP. For example, the Fedora Unity sites use Fedora Directory Server and I set that up. The systems are not yet packaged.. but need to be. I offer my help and experience. Jonathan Steffan From russell at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 1 18:16:13 2006 From: russell at fedoraproject.org (Russell John) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 00:16:13 +0600 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: What about releasing the work under a Creative Commons license? Just a thought. - Russell On 9/1/06, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at > bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without > reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for > example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). > > Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and > others"? That's how most other content and code is marked > distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was > the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one > include? > > -- > Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ > gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 > Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board > Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject > > > -- > Fedora-websites-list mailing list > Fedora-websites-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list > > > > From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 18:42:01 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:42:01 -0400 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1157136121.14912.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:16 +0600, Russell John wrote: > What about releasing the work under a Creative Commons license? Just a thought. I'm not sure I see the utility in doing so, especially since the vast, vast majority of what's on these pages is very Fedora Project specific. As such, not only is it probably material that needs to be protected from potential user confusion and trademark dilution, but it's probably also useless anywhere but where it is. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Sep 6 20:57:09 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at > bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without > reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for > example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). > > Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and > others"? That's how most other content and code is marked > distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was > the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one > include? Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point people at the darn wiki or plone at this point? only partially in jest. Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this dual-site crap. Isn't everyone else? --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From jonathansteffan at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 21:09:26 2006 From: jonathansteffan at gmail.com (Jonathan Steffan) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:09:26 -0600 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44FF3906.3020306@gmail.com> Max Spevack wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at >> bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without >> reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for >> example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). >> >> Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and >> others"? That's how most other content and code is marked >> distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was >> the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one >> include? > > Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point > people at the darn wiki or plone at this point? > > only partially in jest. > > Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the > darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired > of this dual-site crap. > > Isn't everyone else? > > --Max > I'd like to see fpserv take over the job. However, there needs to be upgrades to the plone version and thus the python and zope versions. I don't know if it would be more a pain to get centos running the version of python needed or if it would just be easier to get a Fedora setup. So far I have (and so has Fedora Unity) found plone very useful. We would *need* CacheFu otherwise plone can get very slow at times. This means we should be using plone 2.5. I need to start some more discussion on the infrastructure-list. If anyone would like to join me, please do. I'm busy with work during the day today and will try to forge a good email to send to the list(s). f.r.c should die and I think plone should be the one to kill it. Just my $.02. Jon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gdk at redhat.com Wed Sep 6 21:14:17 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Redirect. Make it happen today. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Max Spevack wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at > > bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without > > reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for > > example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). > > > > Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and > > others"? That's how most other content and code is marked > > distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was > > the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one > > include? > > Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point people > at the darn wiki or plone at this point? > > only partially in jest. > > Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn > thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this > dual-site crap. > > Isn't everyone else? > > --Max > > -- > Max Spevack > + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack > + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc > + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 > > -- > Fedora-websites-list mailing list > Fedora-websites-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list > From sundaram at redhat.com Wed Sep 6 21:20:09 2006 From: sundaram at redhat.com (Rahul) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:50:09 +0530 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <44FF3906.3020306@gmail.com> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44FF3906.3020306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <44FF3B89.9080106@redhat.com> Jonathan Steffan wrote: >> Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the >> darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired >> of this dual-site crap. >> >> Isn't everyone else? >> >> --Max Yes. >> > I'd like to see fpserv take over the job. However, there needs to be > upgrades to the plone version and thus the python and zope versions. I > don't know if it would be more a pain to get centos running the version > of python needed or if it would just be easier to get a Fedora setup. So > far I have (and so has Fedora Unity) found plone very useful. We would > *need* CacheFu otherwise plone can get very slow at times. This means we > should be using plone 2.5. I need to start some more discussion on the > infrastructure-list. If anyone would like to join me, please do. I'm > busy with work during the day today and will try to forge a good email > to send to the list(s). f.r.c should die and I think plone should be the > one to kill it. Just my $.02. > > Jon > I dont think Plone is a absolute requirement to turn off f.r.c. Many project have been using just the wiki for a long time. We can provide a better theme and organize content if necessary till we get Plone in place. Infrastructure list seems to be a closed one anyway. We will set a deadline say before the FC6 general release for cutting off f.r.c. If things happen better before that great. Otherwise we will deal with things. Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Thu Sep 7 02:46:06 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:46:06 -0400 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1157597166.28508.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 17:14 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Max Spevack wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at > > > bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without > > > reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for > > > example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006). > > > > > > Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and > > > others"? That's how most other content and code is marked > > > distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was > > > the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one > > > include? > > > > Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point people > > at the darn wiki or plone at this point? > > > > only partially in jest. > > > > Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn > > thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this > > dual-site crap. > > > > Isn't everyone else? > > Redirect. Make it happen today. Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at redhat.com Thu Sep 7 02:50:47 2006 From: sundaram at redhat.com (Rahul) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:20:47 +0530 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <1157597166.28508.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157597166.28508.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44FF8907.4010507@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: > Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online > browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for > it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT. > Isnt all of the work currently done without plone? If you just need a space to publish, you can do it outside of the wiki in fp.org/docs right? Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Thu Sep 7 03:00:32 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:00:32 -0400 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <44FF8907.4010507@redhat.com> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157597166.28508.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44FF8907.4010507@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157598032.28508.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 08:20 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online > > browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for > > it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT. > > > > Isnt all of the work currently done without plone? If you just need a > space to publish, you can do it outside of the wiki in fp.org/docs right? True. I misunderstood that people were pushing Plone as the solution now. Yes, happy to go along as before at a new URL. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Sep 7 03:24:55 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:24:55 -0500 Subject: Copyright suggestion In-Reply-To: <44FF8907.4010507@redhat.com> References: <1157070421.18320.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157597166.28508.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44FF8907.4010507@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200609062224.58196.nman64@n-man.com> On Wednesday 06 September 2006 21:50, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online > > browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for > > it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT. > > Isnt all of the work currently done without plone? If you just need a > space to publish, you can do it outside of the wiki in fp.org/docs right? > Not quite, there are still a few problems with this. The built items under /docs still reference files, such as stylesheets, images and other pages, from outside of that namespace. The process still uses PHP and other bits that aren't available on fedoraproject.org, so we'd either have to migrate away from those bits or we'd have to proxy or redirect fp.o/docs to infrastructure that does. I'm sure there are other issues for Docs, too. Another problem is the mirror lists and other actively-used files still on fedora.redhat.com. We can't shut off those items, either, but they'll probably be easier to address than /docs. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's not something we can do within a day. Personally, I'd much rather figure out how to empower Plone than spend a bunch of time trying to move the old cruft to fedoraproject.org. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora-websites-list at redhat.com Thu Sep 7 08:24:03 2006 From: fedora-websites-list at redhat.com (Karsten Wade (kwade)) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:24:03 -0700 Subject: web/html/About/Projects/translations index.php,1.2,1.3 Message-ID: <200609070824.k878O3wL002434@cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com> Author: kwade Update of /cvs/fedora/web/html/About/Projects/translations In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2416/About/Projects/translations Modified Files: index.php Log Message: Good idea to have this link. Index: index.php =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/fedora/web/html/About/Projects/translations/index.php,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- index.php 13 Jan 2006 15:09:15 -0000 1.2 +++ index.php 7 Sep 2006 08:24:01 -0000 1.3 @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ For more information about how to participate in this project, read the following:

Arabic: fedora-trans-ar.
Bengali: fedora-trans-bn.
Catalan: fedora-trans-ca.
German: fedora-trans-de.
Spanish: fedora-trans-es.
French: fedora-trans-fr.
German: fedora-trans-de.
Greek: fedora-trans-el.
Gujarati: fedora-trans-gu.
Hindi: fedora-trans-hi.
Hungarian: fedora-trans-hu.
Punjabi: fedora-trans-pa.
Polish: fedora-trans-pl.
Portuguese: fedora-trans-pt.
Brazilian Portuguese: fedora-trans-pt_br.
Portuguese (Brazilian): fedora-trans-pt_br.
Russian: fedora-trans-ru.
Spanish: fedora-trans-es.
Tamil: fedora-trans-ta.
Turkish: fedora-trans-tr.
Simplified Chinese: fedora-trans-zh_cn.

<1157136121.14912.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1159592349.19689.96.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 14:42 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:16 +0600, Russell John wrote: > > What about releasing the work under a Creative Commons license? Just a thought. > > I'm not sure I see the utility in doing so, especially since the vast, > vast majority of what's on these pages is very Fedora Project specific. > As such, not only is it probably material that needs to be protected > from potential user confusion and trademark dilution, but it's probably > also useless anywhere but where it is. Belated reply to make it clear that, at this time, the CC is not an optional license we can use for Fedora content. AIUI, the major objection is the lack of warranty protection, which is an important consideration in the US. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: