Apache OFBiz Service Providers page

[Jacques Le Roux]

After reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking in details I noticed it's suggested to have a "Thanks" page

I looked at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Revised+Website+Structure+v2+-+Approved and noticed we have not a such page (@Emmanuel:
this is WIP for our current site replacement)

Maybe we could create one and put a link from the footer.

I notably read in the foundation link:
"May include a small third party logo for the donor or the goods, and may include a simple HTML link back to the donor."
"May include historical donations that were actively used in the past, but are not currently being used. These items should be marked as such."

I'm thinking about donated logos (HotWax and BrainFood), don't they deserve a special thanks? Of course other ideas may show up, maybe IntelliJ and
Packt Publishing but they rather donate at the ASF level...

Because the <<"Who We Are" Pages>> section suggests

"Should include an overview or links to other ways that newcomers can participate in the project. Think of these as both an introduction to who is
currently in the project, as well as a welcoming way to show future contributors how to join."

I have added a link to the "OFBiz Contributors Best Practices" page. While modifying the PMC page, I noticed the ASF committers map does not work
well. It shows all committers and not only OFBiz's despite the project=Apache OFBiz parameter. I will check and ask about that

I wondered about "Should not include corporate affiliations of actual contributors." but because of "PMCs are free to allow including corporate
affiliations, but should be consistent in their policy for all committers." I think it's good to have it in our page.

Jacques

Le 12/08/2016 à 16:11, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> +1, I'd simply warn again about plain email addresses (spam likes that)
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 09/08/2016 à 14:05, Sharan Foga a écrit :
>> Hi All
>>
>> Just following up on this again as would like to get the Service Providers page tidied up. Looking at the links Emmanuel sent, I think that the
>> column with committer names needs to removed, and I would also probably remove the number contributors column too.
>>
>> One thing to bear in mind is that I don't think this list changes very much, so I would try to keep the information at a level that doesn't need a
>> lot of maintenance.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to keep it as 3 columns, name, location(s) and contact. Location can be wherever the company has a physical presence (so
>> includes employees located there). The contact would be a website or an email, and any other links eg social media would go.
>>
>> Please let me know if this would be an acceptable solution for everyone.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sharan
>>
>> On 2016-08-05 00:54 (+0200), Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
>>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
>>>> more than 1 contributor.
>>>>
>>> An advantage?  Perhaps.  Unfair? I'm not so sure about that.
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>> If it does convey an advantage then perhaps that might encourage companies
>>> to contribute more which is good for the project both in terms of diversity
>>> and contributions.
>>>
>>> Cons:
>>> What does it mean to be a contributor?  If I create a single JIRA ticket
>>> for some minor thing can I then be considered a contributor for the rest of
>>> eternity?  If not, then we have to define some rules and I hate the idea of
>>> adding pointless rules.  For this reason I don't like the idea of including
>>> a count, but definitely not because of any perception of unfairness.
>>>
>>> The same applies with to service providers with
>>>> more than one location.
>>>>
>>> This I disagree with, it is not unfair to state the locations where the
>>> company employees work from.  I think that's information that the page
>>> users would find useful, and if it is important to them then attempting to
>>> figure out that information by following tens or hundreds of links isn't
>>> very useful.  To claim it is an advantage is in itself an admittance that
>>> the information would be found useful, is it not?  It's very
>>> straightforward factual information and unlike 'number of contributors' it
>>> doesn't require any rules or definitions and isn't open to interpretation.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 August 2016 at 07:52, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe the link to the site of Antweb (ofbiz.info) adds little value,
>>>> as
>>>> the list can be sorted on location.
>>>>
>>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
>>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
>>>> more than 1 contributor. The same applies with to service providers with
>>>> more than one location. As I mentioned earlier, let the service providers
>>>> do their marketing on their own site. Referencing blog sites, social media
>>>> accounts, email addresses, etc falls into that category.
>>>>
>>>> A link to the primary website of the service provider should be enough,
>>>> resulting in following columns in the table:
>>>>
>>>>     - name
>>>>     - Country, Province/Region/State
>>>>     - website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>
>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>
>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the effort Sharan!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd wait a bit that people have a look. I just had a glance but did not
>>>>> review all yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> for instance, I'm fine with http://www.ofbiz.info/control/providers but
>>>> I
>>>>> wonder if it follows the rules because I also did not read yet
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#productsupport
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 03/08/2016 à  14:21, Sharan Foga a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have done an initial review of the service provider page and removed
>>>>>> any of the links that are broken, no longer working or where the webpage
>>>>>> has nothing to do with OFBiz. If I know that it is OFBiz related (even
>>>>>> though I couldnt find it on the website, I have left it in the list).
>>>> There
>>>>>> are a few Chinese ones that I will need some help in de-coding :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this list built up to a big size was because it was previously
>>>>>> open and people just came in and created an entry and link to their
>>>>>> website, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with OFBiz. Now with
>>>>>> having to be a contributor to edit the wiki, I hope this will prevent
>>>> this
>>>>>> type of thing happening in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is sorted alphabetically and I've removed the description column. I
>>>>>> will take a look at the link Emmanuel has provided. Should I continue
>>>> with
>>>>>> the tidy up based on what has been talked about so far or should I wait
>>>> to
>>>>>> see if this needs to be discussed some more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-08-03 09:43 (+0200), "Sharan Foga"<[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I will start to implement some of these changes discussed here so if
>>>>>>> anyone else wants to join in and help, then please feel free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-08-02 16:06 (+0200), Jacopo Cappellato <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While we wait for the new site we could:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0) add the page discalimer as suggested; additionally, as Jacques
>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>> out, this page is open to anyone who submits an ICLA and asks to be
>>>>>>>> registered as OFBiz contributor: no one is really reviewing the data
>>>>>>>> provided... we could mention this in the header of the page
>>>>>>>> 1) merge the two lists into one
>>>>>>>> 2) sort in alphabetical order
>>>>>>>> 3) add a column with the number of committers; one with the number of
>>>>>>>> contributors; we could add also a column with the number of employees
>>>>>>>> working on OFBiz related projects; I don't think that this data would
>>>>>>>> "unduly
>>>>>>>> advantage one commercial entity": the idea is to provide some insight
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the teams available to work on OFBiz specific projects
>>>>>>>> 4) make the above columns sortable
>>>>>>>> 5) Location: simply specify the location of the company's
>>>>>>>> offices/buildings; in the description the company can specify the
>>>>>>>> countries
>>>>>>>> of operation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi !
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it came to my attention that this page :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
>>>> Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
>>>>>>>>> might not be neutral enough, as it lists companies having Ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> committers before any other companies. This is a problem, accordingly
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> this :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Apache is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which is a tax-exempt charity for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>> good.  As such, our projects must not unduly advantage one commercial
>>>>>>>>> entity
>>>>>>>>> over another -- otherwise, funding our projects would be a way to
>>>> fund
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> commercial activity without being taxed."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can also have a look at
>>>>>>>>> http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       Apache projects are managed independently
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apache projects must be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole. Note
>>>>>>>>> that it is similarly important that the PMC clearly show this
>>>>>>>>> independence within their project community. The perception of
>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>> and new participants within the community that the PMC is run
>>>>>>>>> independently and without favoring any specific third parties over
>>>>>>>>> others is important, to allow new contributors to feel comfortable
>>>> both
>>>>>>>>> joining the community and contributing their work. A community that
>>>>>>>>> obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive way will often
>>>>>>>>> discourage new contributors from competing vendors, which is an issue
>>>>>>>>> for the long term health of the project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would suggest you rework this page to order the company using an
>>>>>>>>> alphabetical order, not mentionning the fact taht some committers
>>>>>>>>> belong
>>>>>>>>> to those companies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that grouping companies by country is the right thing to
>>>>>>>>> do, as some of them might provide support in many countries. One
>>>> option
>>>>>>>>> would be to add the list of countries a company provides support in
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the same line.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A disclaimer at the top of the page may also be added, informing
>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> neither Apache nor the project endorse any company. You can have a
>>>> look
>>>>>>>>> at other project's page :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://cxf.apache.org/commercial-cxf-offerings.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://directory.apache.org/commercial-support.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>

[Sharan-F]

Hi All

I will go ahead and implement my suggested changes and if anyone wants to bring up the discussion regarding the page format in the future, it can be discussed again.

Thanks
Sharan

On 2016-08-12 16:11 (+0200), Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1, I'd simply warn again about plain email addresses (spam likes that)
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 09/08/2016  14:05, Sharan Foga a crit :
> > Hi All
> >
> > Just following up on this again as would like to get the Service Providers page tidied up. Looking at the links Emmanuel sent, I think that the column with committer names needs to removed, and I would also probably remove the number contributors column too.
> >
> > One thing to bear in mind is that I don't think this list changes very much, so I would try to keep the information at a level that doesn't need a lot of maintenance.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to keep it as 3 columns, name, location(s) and contact. Location can be wherever the company has a physical presence (so includes employees located there). The contact would be a website or an email, and any other links eg social media would go.
> >
> > Please let me know if this would be an acceptable solution for everyone.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sharan
> >
> > On 2016-08-05 00:54 (+0200), Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
> >>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
> >>> more than 1 contributor.
> >>>
> >> An advantage?  Perhaps.  Unfair? I'm not so sure about that.
> >>
> >> Pros:
> >> If it does convey an advantage then perhaps that might encourage companies
> >> to contribute more which is good for the project both in terms of diversity
> >> and contributions.
> >>
> >> Cons:
> >> What does it mean to be a contributor?  If I create a single JIRA ticket
> >> for some minor thing can I then be considered a contributor for the rest of
> >> eternity?  If not, then we have to define some rules and I hate the idea of
> >> adding pointless rules.  For this reason I don't like the idea of including
> >> a count, but definitely not because of any perception of unfairness.
> >>
> >> The same applies with to service providers with
> >>> more than one location.
> >>>
> >> This I disagree with, it is not unfair to state the locations where the
> >> company employees work from.  I think that's information that the page
> >> users would find useful, and if it is important to them then attempting to
> >> figure out that information by following tens or hundreds of links isn't
> >> very useful.  To claim it is an advantage is in itself an admittance that
> >> the information would be found useful, is it not?  It's very
> >> straightforward factual information and unlike 'number of contributors' it
> >> doesn't require any rules or definitions and isn't open to interpretation.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4 August 2016 at 07:52, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I believe the link to the site of Antweb (ofbiz.info) adds little value,
> >>> as
> >>> the list can be sorted on location.
> >>>
> >>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
> >>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
> >>> more than 1 contributor. The same applies with to service providers with
> >>> more than one location. As I mentioned earlier, let the service providers
> >>> do their marketing on their own site. Referencing blog sites, social media
> >>> accounts, email addresses, etc falls into that category.
> >>>
> >>> A link to the primary website of the service provider should be enough,
> >>> resulting in following columns in the table:
> >>>
> >>>     - name
> >>>     - Country, Province/Region/State
> >>>     - website.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> >>> OFBiz based solutions & services
> >>>
> >>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> >>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for the effort Sharan!
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd wait a bit that people have a look. I just had a glance but did not
> >>>> review all yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> for instance, I'm fine with http://www.ofbiz.info/control/providers but
> >>> I
> >>>> wonder if it follows the rules because I also did not read yet
> >>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#productsupport
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 03/08/2016   14:21, Sharan Foga a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi All
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have done an initial review of the service provider page and removed
> >>>>> any of the links that are broken, no longer working or where the webpage
> >>>>> has nothing to do with OFBiz. If I know that it is OFBiz related (even
> >>>>> though I couldnt find it on the website, I have left it in the list).
> >>> There
> >>>>> are a few Chinese ones that I will need some help in de-coding :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think this list built up to a big size was because it was previously
> >>>>> open and people just came in and created an entry and link to their
> >>>>> website, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with OFBiz. Now with
> >>>>> having to be a contributor to edit the wiki, I hope this will prevent
> >>> this
> >>>>> type of thing happening in the future.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is sorted alphabetically and I've removed the description column. I
> >>>>> will take a look at the link Emmanuel has provided. Should I continue
> >>> with
> >>>>> the tidy up based on what has been talked about so far or should I wait
> >>> to
> >>>>> see if this needs to be discussed some more?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> Sharan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2016-08-03 09:43 (+0200), "Sharan Foga"<[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I will start to implement some of these changes discussed here so if
> >>>>>> anyone else wants to join in and help, then please feel free.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Sharan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2016-08-02 16:06 (+0200), Jacopo Cappellato <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> While we wait for the new site we could:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 0) add the page discalimer as suggested; additionally, as Jacques
> >>>>>>> pointed
> >>>>>>> out, this page is open to anyone who submits an ICLA and asks to be
> >>>>>>> registered as OFBiz contributor: no one is really reviewing the data
> >>>>>>> provided... we could mention this in the header of the page
> >>>>>>> 1) merge the two lists into one
> >>>>>>> 2) sort in alphabetical order
> >>>>>>> 3) add a column with the number of committers; one with the number of
> >>>>>>> contributors; we could add also a column with the number of employees
> >>>>>>> working on OFBiz related projects; I don't think that this data would
> >>>>>>> "unduly
> >>>>>>> advantage one commercial entity": the idea is to provide some insight
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> the teams available to work on OFBiz specific projects
> >>>>>>> 4) make the above columns sortable
> >>>>>>> 5) Location: simply specify the location of the company's
> >>>>>>> offices/buildings; in the description the company can specify the
> >>>>>>> countries
> >>>>>>> of operation
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi !
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> it came to my attention that this page :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
> >>> Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
> >>>>>>>> might not be neutral enough, as it lists companies having Ofbiz
> >>>>>>>> committers before any other companies. This is a problem, accordingly
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> this :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Apache is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which is a tax-exempt charity for
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>> good.  As such, our projects must not unduly advantage one commercial
> >>>>>>>> entity
> >>>>>>>> over another -- otherwise, funding our projects would be a way to
> >>> fund
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> commercial activity without being taxed."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You can also have a look at
> >>>>>>>> http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>       Apache projects are managed independently
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Apache projects must be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> they are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole. Note
> >>>>>>>> that it is similarly important that the PMC clearly show this
> >>>>>>>> independence within their project community. The perception of
> >>> existing
> >>>>>>>> and new participants within the community that the PMC is run
> >>>>>>>> independently and without favoring any specific third parties over
> >>>>>>>> others is important, to allow new contributors to feel comfortable
> >>> both
> >>>>>>>> joining the community and contributing their work. A community that
> >>>>>>>> obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive way will often
> >>>>>>>> discourage new contributors from competing vendors, which is an issue
> >>>>>>>> for the long term health of the project.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would suggest you rework this page to order the company using an
> >>>>>>>> alphabetical order, not mentionning the fact taht some committers
> >>>>>>>> belong
> >>>>>>>> to those companies.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure that grouping companies by country is the right thing to
> >>>>>>>> do, as some of them might provide support in many countries. One
> >>> option
> >>>>>>>> would be to add the list of countries a company provides support in
> >>> on
> >>>>>>>> the same line.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A disclaimer at the top of the page may also be added, informing
> >>> users
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> neither Apache nor the project endorse any company. You can have a
> >>> look
> >>>>>>>> at other project's page :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://cxf.apache.org/commercial-cxf-offerings.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://directory.apache.org/commercial-support.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks !
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
>
>

[Sharan Foga]

Hi Jacques

You've made quite a few proposals here that are not really related to the service providers page initial topic, so I think it might be easier to do it as part of a new thread so that it would be easier to follow and comment on.  

I'm still l working on the new website and I'd like to show the community an initial draft for review before incorporating any more changes. I'm sure that the review will bring out a range of comments and suggestions for changes and suggest it would be easier to discuss and address the points you have proposed as part of that process.

Thanks
Sharan


On 2016-08-14 13:25 (+0200), Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:

> After reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking in details I noticed it's suggested to have a "Thanks" page
>
> I looked at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Revised+Website+Structure+v2+-+Approved and noticed we have not a such page (@Emmanuel:
> this is WIP for our current site replacement)
>
> Maybe we could create one and put a link from the footer.
>
> I notably read in the foundation link:
> "May include a small third party logo for the donor or the goods, and may include a simple HTML link back to the donor."
> "May include historical donations that were actively used in the past, but are not currently being used. These items should be marked as such."
>
> I'm thinking about donated logos (HotWax and BrainFood), don't they deserve a special thanks? Of course other ideas may show up, maybe IntelliJ and
> Packt Publishing but they rather donate at the ASF level...
>
> Because the <<"Who We Are" Pages>> section suggests
>
> "Should include an overview or links to other ways that newcomers can participate in the project. Think of these as both an introduction to who is
> currently in the project, as well as a welcoming way to show future contributors how to join."
>
> I have added a link to the "OFBiz Contributors Best Practices" page. While modifying the PMC page, I noticed the ASF committers map does not work
> well. It shows all committers and not only OFBiz's despite the project=Apache OFBiz parameter. I will check and ask about that
>
> I wondered about "Should not include corporate affiliations of actual contributors." but because of "PMCs are free to allow including corporate
> affiliations, but should be consistent in their policy for all committers." I think it's good to have it in our page.
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 12/08/2016  16:11, Jacques Le Roux a crit :
> > +1, I'd simply warn again about plain email addresses (spam likes that)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> > Le 09/08/2016  14:05, Sharan Foga a crit :
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> Just following up on this again as would like to get the Service Providers page tidied up. Looking at the links Emmanuel sent, I think that the
> >> column with committer names needs to removed, and I would also probably remove the number contributors column too.
> >>
> >> One thing to bear in mind is that I don't think this list changes very much, so I would try to keep the information at a level that doesn't need a
> >> lot of maintenance.
> >>
> >> My suggestion would be to keep it as 3 columns, name, location(s) and contact. Location can be wherever the company has a physical presence (so
> >> includes employees located there). The contact would be a website or an email, and any other links eg social media would go.
> >>
> >> Please let me know if this would be an acceptable solution for everyone.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Sharan
> >>
> >> On 2016-08-05 00:54 (+0200), Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
> >>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
> >>>> more than 1 contributor.
> >>>>
> >>> An advantage?  Perhaps.  Unfair? I'm not so sure about that.
> >>>
> >>> Pros:
> >>> If it does convey an advantage then perhaps that might encourage companies
> >>> to contribute more which is good for the project both in terms of diversity
> >>> and contributions.
> >>>
> >>> Cons:
> >>> What does it mean to be a contributor?  If I create a single JIRA ticket
> >>> for some minor thing can I then be considered a contributor for the rest of
> >>> eternity?  If not, then we have to define some rules and I hate the idea of
> >>> adding pointless rules.  For this reason I don't like the idea of including
> >>> a count, but definitely not because of any perception of unfairness.
> >>>
> >>> The same applies with to service providers with
> >>>> more than one location.
> >>>>
> >>> This I disagree with, it is not unfair to state the locations where the
> >>> company employees work from.  I think that's information that the page
> >>> users would find useful, and if it is important to them then attempting to
> >>> figure out that information by following tens or hundreds of links isn't
> >>> very useful.  To claim it is an advantage is in itself an admittance that
> >>> the information would be found useful, is it not?  It's very
> >>> straightforward factual information and unlike 'number of contributors' it
> >>> doesn't require any rules or definitions and isn't open to interpretation.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4 August 2016 at 07:52, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I believe the link to the site of Antweb (ofbiz.info) adds little value,
> >>>> as
> >>>> the list can be sorted on location.
> >>>>
> >>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
> >>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
> >>>> more than 1 contributor. The same applies with to service providers with
> >>>> more than one location. As I mentioned earlier, let the service providers
> >>>> do their marketing on their own site. Referencing blog sites, social media
> >>>> accounts, email addresses, etc falls into that category.
> >>>>
> >>>> A link to the primary website of the service provider should be enough,
> >>>> resulting in following columns in the table:
> >>>>
> >>>>     - name
> >>>>     - Country, Province/Region/State
> >>>>     - website.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Pierre Smits
> >>>>
> >>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> >>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
> >>>>
> >>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> >>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> >>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the effort Sharan!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd wait a bit that people have a look. I just had a glance but did not
> >>>>> review all yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> for instance, I'm fine with http://www.ofbiz.info/control/providers but
> >>>> I
> >>>>> wonder if it follows the rules because I also did not read yet
> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#productsupport
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le 03/08/2016   14:21, Sharan Foga a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi All
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have done an initial review of the service provider page and removed
> >>>>>> any of the links that are broken, no longer working or where the webpage
> >>>>>> has nothing to do with OFBiz. If I know that it is OFBiz related (even
> >>>>>> though I couldnt find it on the website, I have left it in the list).
> >>>> There
> >>>>>> are a few Chinese ones that I will need some help in de-coding :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think this list built up to a big size was because it was previously
> >>>>>> open and people just came in and created an entry and link to their
> >>>>>> website, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with OFBiz. Now with
> >>>>>> having to be a contributor to edit the wiki, I hope this will prevent
> >>>> this
> >>>>>> type of thing happening in the future.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is sorted alphabetically and I've removed the description column. I
> >>>>>> will take a look at the link Emmanuel has provided. Should I continue
> >>>> with
> >>>>>> the tidy up based on what has been talked about so far or should I wait
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> see if this needs to be discussed some more?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Sharan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2016-08-03 09:43 (+0200), "Sharan Foga"<[hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> I will start to implement some of these changes discussed here so if
> >>>>>>> anyone else wants to join in and help, then please feel free.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>> Sharan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2016-08-02 16:06 (+0200), Jacopo Cappellato <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While we wait for the new site we could:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 0) add the page discalimer as suggested; additionally, as Jacques
> >>>>>>>> pointed
> >>>>>>>> out, this page is open to anyone who submits an ICLA and asks to be
> >>>>>>>> registered as OFBiz contributor: no one is really reviewing the data
> >>>>>>>> provided... we could mention this in the header of the page
> >>>>>>>> 1) merge the two lists into one
> >>>>>>>> 2) sort in alphabetical order
> >>>>>>>> 3) add a column with the number of committers; one with the number of
> >>>>>>>> contributors; we could add also a column with the number of employees
> >>>>>>>> working on OFBiz related projects; I don't think that this data would
> >>>>>>>> "unduly
> >>>>>>>> advantage one commercial entity": the idea is to provide some insight
> >>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>> the teams available to work on OFBiz specific projects
> >>>>>>>> 4) make the above columns sortable
> >>>>>>>> 5) Location: simply specify the location of the company's
> >>>>>>>> offices/buildings; in the description the company can specify the
> >>>>>>>> countries
> >>>>>>>> of operation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi !
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it came to my attention that this page :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
> >>>> Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
> >>>>>>>>> might not be neutral enough, as it lists companies having Ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> committers before any other companies. This is a problem, accordingly
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> this :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Apache is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which is a tax-exempt charity for
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>> good.  As such, our projects must not unduly advantage one commercial
> >>>>>>>>> entity
> >>>>>>>>> over another -- otherwise, funding our projects would be a way to
> >>>> fund
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> commercial activity without being taxed."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can also have a look at
> >>>>>>>>> http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Apache projects are managed independently
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Apache projects must be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> they are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole. Note
> >>>>>>>>> that it is similarly important that the PMC clearly show this
> >>>>>>>>> independence within their project community. The perception of
> >>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>> and new participants within the community that the PMC is run
> >>>>>>>>> independently and without favoring any specific third parties over
> >>>>>>>>> others is important, to allow new contributors to feel comfortable
> >>>> both
> >>>>>>>>> joining the community and contributing their work. A community that
> >>>>>>>>> obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive way will often
> >>>>>>>>> discourage new contributors from competing vendors, which is an issue
> >>>>>>>>> for the long term health of the project.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would suggest you rework this page to order the company using an
> >>>>>>>>> alphabetical order, not mentionning the fact taht some committers
> >>>>>>>>> belong
> >>>>>>>>> to those companies.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that grouping companies by country is the right thing to
> >>>>>>>>> do, as some of them might provide support in many countries. One
> >>>> option
> >>>>>>>>> would be to add the list of countries a company provides support in
> >>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> the same line.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A disclaimer at the top of the page may also be added, informing
> >>>> users
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> neither Apache nor the project endorse any company. You can have a
> >>>> look
> >>>>>>>>> at other project's page :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://cxf.apache.org/commercial-cxf-offerings.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://directory.apache.org/commercial-support.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks !
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Sharan,

Looks quite good to me, I'd just add that, as I actually monitor all changes in the wiki, this page is also monitored.

Jacques


Le 15/08/2016 à 09:30, Sharan Foga a écrit :

> Hi All
>
> I will go ahead and implement my suggested changes and if anyone wants to bring up the discussion regarding the page format in the future, it can be discussed again.
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
>
> On 2016-08-12 16:11 (+0200), Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> +1, I'd simply warn again about plain email addresses (spam likes that)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 09/08/2016  14:05, Sharan Foga a crit :
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> Just following up on this again as would like to get the Service Providers page tidied up. Looking at the links Emmanuel sent, I think that the column with committer names needs to removed, and I would also probably remove the number contributors column too.
>>>
>>> One thing to bear in mind is that I don't think this list changes very much, so I would try to keep the information at a level that doesn't need a lot of maintenance.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be to keep it as 3 columns, name, location(s) and contact. Location can be wherever the company has a physical presence (so includes employees located there). The contact would be a website or an email, and any other links eg social media would go.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if this would be an acceptable solution for everyone.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>>
>>> On 2016-08-05 00:54 (+0200), Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
>>>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
>>>>> more than 1 contributor.
>>>>>
>>>> An advantage?  Perhaps.  Unfair? I'm not so sure about that.
>>>>
>>>> Pros:
>>>> If it does convey an advantage then perhaps that might encourage companies
>>>> to contribute more which is good for the project both in terms of diversity
>>>> and contributions.
>>>>
>>>> Cons:
>>>> What does it mean to be a contributor?  If I create a single JIRA ticket
>>>> for some minor thing can I then be considered a contributor for the rest of
>>>> eternity?  If not, then we have to define some rules and I hate the idea of
>>>> adding pointless rules.  For this reason I don't like the idea of including
>>>> a count, but definitely not because of any perception of unfairness.
>>>>
>>>> The same applies with to service providers with
>>>>> more than one location.
>>>>>
>>>> This I disagree with, it is not unfair to state the locations where the
>>>> company employees work from.  I think that's information that the page
>>>> users would find useful, and if it is important to them then attempting to
>>>> figure out that information by following tens or hundreds of links isn't
>>>> very useful.  To claim it is an advantage is in itself an admittance that
>>>> the information would be found useful, is it not?  It's very
>>>> straightforward factual information and unlike 'number of contributors' it
>>>> doesn't require any rules or definitions and isn't open to interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 August 2016 at 07:52, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I believe the link to the site of Antweb (ofbiz.info) adds little value,
>>>>> as
>>>>> the list can be sorted on location.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
>>>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
>>>>> more than 1 contributor. The same applies with to service providers with
>>>>> more than one location. As I mentioned earlier, let the service providers
>>>>> do their marketing on their own site. Referencing blog sites, social media
>>>>> accounts, email addresses, etc falls into that category.
>>>>>
>>>>> A link to the primary website of the service provider should be enough,
>>>>> resulting in following columns in the table:
>>>>>
>>>>>      - name
>>>>>      - Country, Province/Region/State
>>>>>      - website.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>
>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>>
>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the effort Sharan!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd wait a bit that people have a look. I just had a glance but did not
>>>>>> review all yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for instance, I'm fine with http://www.ofbiz.info/control/providers but
>>>>> I
>>>>>> wonder if it follows the rules because I also did not read yet
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#productsupport
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 03/08/2016   14:21, Sharan Foga a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have done an initial review of the service provider page and removed
>>>>>>> any of the links that are broken, no longer working or where the webpage
>>>>>>> has nothing to do with OFBiz. If I know that it is OFBiz related (even
>>>>>>> though I couldnt find it on the website, I have left it in the list).
>>>>> There
>>>>>>> are a few Chinese ones that I will need some help in de-coding :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this list built up to a big size was because it was previously
>>>>>>> open and people just came in and created an entry and link to their
>>>>>>> website, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with OFBiz. Now with
>>>>>>> having to be a contributor to edit the wiki, I hope this will prevent
>>>>> this
>>>>>>> type of thing happening in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is sorted alphabetically and I've removed the description column. I
>>>>>>> will take a look at the link Emmanuel has provided. Should I continue
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the tidy up based on what has been talked about so far or should I wait
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> see if this needs to be discussed some more?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-08-03 09:43 (+0200), "Sharan Foga"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I will start to implement some of these changes discussed here so if
>>>>>>>> anyone else wants to join in and help, then please feel free.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016-08-02 16:06 (+0200), Jacopo Cappellato <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While we wait for the new site we could:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 0) add the page discalimer as suggested; additionally, as Jacques
>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>> out, this page is open to anyone who submits an ICLA and asks to be
>>>>>>>>> registered as OFBiz contributor: no one is really reviewing the data
>>>>>>>>> provided... we could mention this in the header of the page
>>>>>>>>> 1) merge the two lists into one
>>>>>>>>> 2) sort in alphabetical order
>>>>>>>>> 3) add a column with the number of committers; one with the number of
>>>>>>>>> contributors; we could add also a column with the number of employees
>>>>>>>>> working on OFBiz related projects; I don't think that this data would
>>>>>>>>> "unduly
>>>>>>>>> advantage one commercial entity": the idea is to provide some insight
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> the teams available to work on OFBiz specific projects
>>>>>>>>> 4) make the above columns sortable
>>>>>>>>> 5) Location: simply specify the location of the company's
>>>>>>>>> offices/buildings; in the description the company can specify the
>>>>>>>>> countries
>>>>>>>>> of operation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi !
>>>>>>>>>> it came to my attention that this page :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
>>>>> Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
>>>>>>>>>> might not be neutral enough, as it lists companies having Ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>> committers before any other companies. This is a problem, accordingly
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> this :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Apache is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which is a tax-exempt charity for
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>> good.  As such, our projects must not unduly advantage one commercial
>>>>>>>>>> entity
>>>>>>>>>> over another -- otherwise, funding our projects would be a way to
>>>>> fund
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> commercial activity without being taxed."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can also have a look at
>>>>>>>>>> http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Apache projects are managed independently
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apache projects must be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> they are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole. Note
>>>>>>>>>> that it is similarly important that the PMC clearly show this
>>>>>>>>>> independence within their project community. The perception of
>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>> and new participants within the community that the PMC is run
>>>>>>>>>> independently and without favoring any specific third parties over
>>>>>>>>>> others is important, to allow new contributors to feel comfortable
>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>> joining the community and contributing their work. A community that
>>>>>>>>>> obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive way will often
>>>>>>>>>> discourage new contributors from competing vendors, which is an issue
>>>>>>>>>> for the long term health of the project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest you rework this page to order the company using an
>>>>>>>>>> alphabetical order, not mentionning the fact taht some committers
>>>>>>>>>> belong
>>>>>>>>>> to those companies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that grouping companies by country is the right thing to
>>>>>>>>>> do, as some of them might provide support in many countries. One
>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>> would be to add the list of countries a company provides support in
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the same line.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A disclaimer at the top of the page may also be added, informing
>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> neither Apache nor the project endorse any company. You can have a
>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>> at other project's page :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cxf.apache.org/commercial-cxf-offerings.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://directory.apache.org/commercial-support.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Right Sharan, done

Thanks

Jacques


Le 15/08/2016 à 09:32, Sharan Foga a écrit :

> Hi Jacques
>
> You've made quite a few proposals here that are not really related to the service providers page initial topic, so I think it might be easier to do it as part of a new thread so that it would be easier to follow and comment on.
>
> I'm still l working on the new website and I'd like to show the community an initial draft for review before incorporating any more changes. I'm sure that the review will bring out a range of comments and suggestions for changes and suggest it would be easier to discuss and address the points you have proposed as part of that process.
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
>
>
> On 2016-08-14 13:25 (+0200), Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> After reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking in details I noticed it's suggested to have a "Thanks" page
>>
>> I looked at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Revised+Website+Structure+v2+-+Approved and noticed we have not a such page (@Emmanuel:
>> this is WIP for our current site replacement)
>>
>> Maybe we could create one and put a link from the footer.
>>
>> I notably read in the foundation link:
>> "May include a small third party logo for the donor or the goods, and may include a simple HTML link back to the donor."
>> "May include historical donations that were actively used in the past, but are not currently being used. These items should be marked as such."
>>
>> I'm thinking about donated logos (HotWax and BrainFood), don't they deserve a special thanks? Of course other ideas may show up, maybe IntelliJ and
>> Packt Publishing but they rather donate at the ASF level...
>>
>> Because the <<"Who We Are" Pages>> section suggests
>>
>> "Should include an overview or links to other ways that newcomers can participate in the project. Think of these as both an introduction to who is
>> currently in the project, as well as a welcoming way to show future contributors how to join."
>>
>> I have added a link to the "OFBiz Contributors Best Practices" page. While modifying the PMC page, I noticed the ASF committers map does not work
>> well. It shows all committers and not only OFBiz's despite the project=Apache OFBiz parameter. I will check and ask about that
>>
>> I wondered about "Should not include corporate affiliations of actual contributors." but because of "PMCs are free to allow including corporate
>> affiliations, but should be consistent in their policy for all committers." I think it's good to have it in our page.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 12/08/2016  16:11, Jacques Le Roux a crit :
>>> +1, I'd simply warn again about plain email addresses (spam likes that)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 09/08/2016  14:05, Sharan Foga a crit :
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> Just following up on this again as would like to get the Service Providers page tidied up. Looking at the links Emmanuel sent, I think that the
>>>> column with committer names needs to removed, and I would also probably remove the number contributors column too.
>>>>
>>>> One thing to bear in mind is that I don't think this list changes very much, so I would try to keep the information at a level that doesn't need a
>>>> lot of maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion would be to keep it as 3 columns, name, location(s) and contact. Location can be wherever the company has a physical presence (so
>>>> includes employees located there). The contact would be a website or an email, and any other links eg social media would go.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if this would be an acceptable solution for everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Sharan
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-08-05 00:54 (+0200), Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
>>>>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
>>>>>> more than 1 contributor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> An advantage?  Perhaps.  Unfair? I'm not so sure about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pros:
>>>>> If it does convey an advantage then perhaps that might encourage companies
>>>>> to contribute more which is good for the project both in terms of diversity
>>>>> and contributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cons:
>>>>> What does it mean to be a contributor?  If I create a single JIRA ticket
>>>>> for some minor thing can I then be considered a contributor for the rest of
>>>>> eternity?  If not, then we have to define some rules and I hate the idea of
>>>>> adding pointless rules.  For this reason I don't like the idea of including
>>>>> a count, but definitely not because of any perception of unfairness.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same applies with to service providers with
>>>>>> more than one location.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This I disagree with, it is not unfair to state the locations where the
>>>>> company employees work from.  I think that's information that the page
>>>>> users would find useful, and if it is important to them then attempting to
>>>>> figure out that information by following tens or hundreds of links isn't
>>>>> very useful.  To claim it is an advantage is in itself an admittance that
>>>>> the information would be found useful, is it not?  It's very
>>>>> straightforward factual information and unlike 'number of contributors' it
>>>>> doesn't require any rules or definitions and isn't open to interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 August 2016 at 07:52, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the link to the site of Antweb (ofbiz.info) adds little value,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the list can be sorted on location.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further more the columns 'number of committers/contributors' and
>>>>>> 'Contributors' provide an unfair advantage to those with committers and
>>>>>> more than 1 contributor. The same applies with to service providers with
>>>>>> more than one location. As I mentioned earlier, let the service providers
>>>>>> do their marketing on their own site. Referencing blog sites, social media
>>>>>> accounts, email addresses, etc falls into that category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A link to the primary website of the service provider should be enough,
>>>>>> resulting in following columns in the table:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      - name
>>>>>>      - Country, Province/Region/State
>>>>>>      - website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the effort Sharan!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd wait a bit that people have a look. I just had a glance but did not
>>>>>>> review all yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for instance, I'm fine with http://www.ofbiz.info/control/providers but
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> wonder if it follows the rules because I also did not read yet
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#productsupport
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 03/08/2016   14:21, Sharan Foga a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have done an initial review of the service provider page and removed
>>>>>>>> any of the links that are broken, no longer working or where the webpage
>>>>>>>> has nothing to do with OFBiz. If I know that it is OFBiz related (even
>>>>>>>> though I couldnt find it on the website, I have left it in the list).
>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>> are a few Chinese ones that I will need some help in de-coding :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think this list built up to a big size was because it was previously
>>>>>>>> open and people just came in and created an entry and link to their
>>>>>>>> website, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with OFBiz. Now with
>>>>>>>> having to be a contributor to edit the wiki, I hope this will prevent
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> type of thing happening in the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is sorted alphabetically and I've removed the description column. I
>>>>>>>> will take a look at the link Emmanuel has provided. Should I continue
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the tidy up based on what has been talked about so far or should I wait
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> see if this needs to be discussed some more?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016-08-03 09:43 (+0200), "Sharan Foga"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I will start to implement some of these changes discussed here so if
>>>>>>>>> anyone else wants to join in and help, then please feel free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2016-08-02 16:06 (+0200), Jacopo Cappellato <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While we wait for the new site we could:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 0) add the page discalimer as suggested; additionally, as Jacques
>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>> out, this page is open to anyone who submits an ICLA and asks to be
>>>>>>>>>> registered as OFBiz contributor: no one is really reviewing the data
>>>>>>>>>> provided... we could mention this in the header of the page
>>>>>>>>>> 1) merge the two lists into one
>>>>>>>>>> 2) sort in alphabetical order
>>>>>>>>>> 3) add a column with the number of committers; one with the number of
>>>>>>>>>> contributors; we could add also a column with the number of employees
>>>>>>>>>> working on OFBiz related projects; I don't think that this data would
>>>>>>>>>> "unduly
>>>>>>>>>> advantage one commercial entity": the idea is to provide some insight
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> the teams available to work on OFBiz specific projects
>>>>>>>>>> 4) make the above columns sortable
>>>>>>>>>> 5) Location: simply specify the location of the company's
>>>>>>>>>> offices/buildings; in the description the company can specify the
>>>>>>>>>> countries
>>>>>>>>>> of operation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi !
>>>>>>>>>>> it came to my attention that this page :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
>>>>>> Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
>>>>>>>>>>> might not be neutral enough, as it lists companies having Ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> committers before any other companies. This is a problem, accordingly
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> this :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Apache is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which is a tax-exempt charity for
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>> good.  As such, our projects must not unduly advantage one commercial
>>>>>>>>>>> entity
>>>>>>>>>>> over another -- otherwise, funding our projects would be a way to
>>>>>> fund
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> commercial activity without being taxed."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can also have a look at
>>>>>>>>>>> http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>        Apache projects are managed independently
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apache projects must be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> they are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole. Note
>>>>>>>>>>> that it is similarly important that the PMC clearly show this
>>>>>>>>>>> independence within their project community. The perception of
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>> and new participants within the community that the PMC is run
>>>>>>>>>>> independently and without favoring any specific third parties over
>>>>>>>>>>> others is important, to allow new contributors to feel comfortable
>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>> joining the community and contributing their work. A community that
>>>>>>>>>>> obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive way will often
>>>>>>>>>>> discourage new contributors from competing vendors, which is an issue
>>>>>>>>>>> for the long term health of the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest you rework this page to order the company using an
>>>>>>>>>>> alphabetical order, not mentionning the fact taht some committers
>>>>>>>>>>> belong
>>>>>>>>>>> to those companies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that grouping companies by country is the right thing to
>>>>>>>>>>> do, as some of them might provide support in many countries. One
>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> would be to add the list of countries a company provides support in
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the same line.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A disclaimer at the top of the page may also be added, informing
>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> neither Apache nor the project endorse any company. You can have a
>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>> at other project's page :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cxf.apache.org/commercial-cxf-offerings.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://directory.apache.org/commercial-support.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>