OFBiz.org site: easier navigation to Service Providers and End Users

[Jacques Le Roux]

Which websites are you seeing there? In the carousel?

Jacques

Le 18/02/2014 12:08, Pierre Smits a écrit :

> As for the marketing aspect, linking works both ways.
>
> Looking at the homepage of OFBiz I see that marketing is done for various
> websites . Beside the fact that there is a potential thread of violation of
> the rights of others, it could be regarded as applying double standards.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Having done a cursory review of websites of other Apache Projects I can
>> state that we are not creating a precedent here.
>>
>> As for the possibility of potentially conveying the impression that the
>> community or the ASF are officially supporting implementation and support
>> providers this can be easily corrected with a statement at the top of the
>> document(s). As for the remark regarding approving any content this can be
>> said of anything posted in any document the project controls, e.g. mailing
>> lists postings.
>>
>> Regarding violating trademark policies of ASF it is so that the foundation
>> has sufficient means (and procedures) at its disposal to take corrective
>> measures. If there are violations of such policies, then these should be
>> addressed.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Nick Rosser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what's the final word on this?
>>>>
>>>> Seems like we have mostly "yeahs" for this change.
>>> This doesn't seem an accurate summary of the feedback received: Jacques
>>> and Pierre expressed a positive feedback; Christian seems neutral; I am
>>> against; no one else expressed an opinion yet.
>>> It is really too early to come up to such a conclusion.
>>>
>>>> Can we get it done?
>>> I understand that companies are interested in getting free marketing (SEO
>>> etc..) from independent and authoritative sources like the official OFBiz
>>> site and the ASF in general, and this adds some pressure on the OFBiz PMC
>>> and project. However, as I already stated, I will be against any changes,
>>> e.g., adding a link on the "top menu", that may convey the impression that
>>> the project officially supports or even approves any content on which there
>>> is no control, e.g., the content of wiki documents.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the links you want to add in the top menu point to the
>>> following documents:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List
>>>
>>> for which there is no control or rules on who, what and how information
>>> can be published, and there are links that potentially violate the
>>> trademarks policy  of OFBIZ and ASF.
>>> After a cursory review of the content of these documents I would be even
>>> tempted to propose the removal of the links from the documentation page,
>>> rather than adding them to the top menu (and I am a bit surprised to see
>>> that a PMC member may be in favor of adding them there).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> On 2/12/2014 5:45 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>> It shouldn't prove to difficult to have menu items in the menu bar of
>>> the
>>>>> website that directly link to pages in the wiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>
>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM<http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>>> Services&  Solutions for Cloud-
>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>>> Services and Retail&  Trade
>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Jacopo Cappellato<
>>>>> [hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The project doesn't have much control over the information published
>>> in
>>>>>> the wiki and we should not publish links in the official website that
>>> may
>>>>>> imply that these pages are official. In the past we had issues and
>>>>>> discussions around what was published in the official website and the
>>>>>> current website is the result of those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Jacques Le Roux<
>>>>>> [hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you have a point Nick,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could add those without expecting load issues on Confluence
>>> indeed.
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 07, 2014 4:06 PM, [hidden email] wrote
>>>>>>>> Pierre: "attract some more participation" -- exactly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did see a response about the original change to omit these from
>>> the
>>>>>>>> home page - I can't imagine that we have enough traffic to stress
>>> any
>>>>>>>> server.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there is general agreement who can make the change?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2014 3:53 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I agree with the above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not only will it deliver on the marketing aspect, but it might also
>>>>>> attract
>>>>>>>>> some more participation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM<http://ORRTIZ.COM>*
>>>>>>>>> Services&   Solutions for Cloud-
>>>>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>>>>>>> Services and Retail&   Trade
>>>>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux<
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sounds a good marketing idea to me
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This was a bit like that before,
>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=925066
>>>>>>>>>> But has been moved down because of conflicting opinions. I don't
>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>> clearly...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What are others opinions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:40 PM, [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever I look at pretty much anything these days I look for a
>>>>>>>>>>> "clients" link to see who is using a product or service.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I'm looking to use a piece of software and review at the
>>> vendor's
>>>>>>>>>>> site I will often look to see who are the partners (integrators)
>>> are
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> as a client I would be looking for some comfort level that the
>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>> or service will well supported.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For OFBiz this is hidden under the "documentation" tab, at the
>>>>>> bottom of
>>>>>>>>>>> that page, in small font and labelled "Users of Apache OFBiz".and
>>>>>>>>>>> "Apache OFBiz Service Providers". Documentation to me is just
>>> that, a
>>>>>>>>>>> list of user and technical documentation, white papers etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could these two links to main navigation bar? I would suggest
>>> that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> main navigation is:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Home
>>>>>>>>>>> Download
>>>>>>>>>>> Community
>>>>>>>>>>> Service Providers
>>>>>>>>>>> Who is using OFBiz?
>>>>>>>>>>> Documentation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there are several companies in the page that mention the term "contributors" even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is monitoring for violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see pages that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially endorsed by the project.

Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF is
clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link them
from the main site.

Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers 
page
<<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of the
list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will certainly
alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>

Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own decision
to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible. Contributor is
indeed not an official role. It was added by someone and I decided to
keep the idea. Because it allows to separate contributors from
committers in this column.
Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW,
Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed) and
committers in this list?
I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided it  
was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of separating
concerns.

Jacques

>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely publish this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the PMC has to endorse them or fix them.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
>
>

[Pierre Smits]

If you are referring to the images that change at the top of the home page,
then the answer is yes.

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

[Jacques Le Roux]

BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for violation:
should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it would not
penalize other sites...

This done we could block the page for users who would like to exceed
their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how that works,
see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page access)

Jacques

Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must
>> be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have
>> clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can
>> add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only
>> companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there are
>> several companies in the page that mention the term "contributors"
>> even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz PMC), I see links to
>> external sites that the ASF is monitoring for violations to the ASF
>> and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see pages that are a mess and
>> clearly they can't be officially endorsed by the project.
>
> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF is
> clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link them
> from the main site.
>
> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers 
> page
> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
> independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of
> the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will
> certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>
> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own
> decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible.
> Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by someone
> and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to separate
> contributors from committers in this column.
> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW,
> Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed) and
> committers in this list?
> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided it  
> was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of
> separating concerns.
>
> Jacques
>
>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on
>>> these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely publish
>> this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the PMC has to
>> endorse them or fix them.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Those were provided by HWM (Hotwax Media) when they overhauled the look
of the site with Brainfood.
I personally see no issues there because even if you can barely read the
site names, there are no links and the images were only provided as
examples. They could be replaced but sincerely it's a moot point. If you
are not aware of the history you hardly can know who build these sites
and you can't directly link to them.

To me it's kind of marketing for OFBiz, not for sites builders. We could
put more images (form other sites builders) or update/replace currents
ones, size: 513x202 32 bits/pixel

Jacques

Le 19/02/2014 11:54, Pierre Smits a écrit :

> If you are referring to the images that change at the top of the home page,
> then the answer is yes.
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>

[Nick Rosser-2]

With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the
originally proposed change?

Nick

On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for
> violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it
> would not penalize other sites...
>
> This done we could block the page for users who would like to exceed
> their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how that
> works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page access)
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must
>>> be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have
>>> clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can
>>> add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only
>>> companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there are
>>> several companies in the page that mention the term "contributors"
>>> even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz PMC), I see links
>>> to external sites that the ASF is monitoring for violations to the
>>> ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see pages that are a mess and
>>> clearly they can't be officially endorsed by the project.
>>
>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF is
>> clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link them
>> from the main site.
>>
>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers 
>> page
>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
>> independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of
>> the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will
>> certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>>
>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own
>> decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible.
>> Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by someone
>> and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to separate
>> contributors from committers in this column.
>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW,
>> Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed)
>> and committers in this list?
>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided it  
>> was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of
>> separating concerns.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on
>>>> these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely publish
>>> this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the PMC has to
>>> endorse them or fix them.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[Pierre Smits]

First of all, everything published on a publication means of the Foundation
(regardless whether this is an 'official' site, a wiki or a mailing list)
is in line with the principles of the ASF. If not, actions will be
undertaken. By the ASF.
Nowhere in the documents of the ASF it is stated that when a site is in a
bad state (a mess as it has been called) it may not be linked.

As for contributing and calling yourself a contributor, the term
contributor is official in the ASF documents and when persons provide
comments, document enhancements or even participate in discussions they are
contributing to the project. Again without any remark about the quality of
the contribution, only that the contributions are improvements.

What I read in the lines of Jacopo is veto. What I don't read is: 'I have
my opinion about how it should be, but I am for finding a consensus to get
this issue resolved'. And that is a pity. Because no matter what a project
has as output or where its community wants it to go, according to the ASF
it should always be 'Community over Code'. And so should this project be.

Regards.

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

[Pierre Smits]

Jacques is correct when saying 'it's a kind of marketing of OFBiz' when he
talks about the images at the top of the home page of the OFBiz site. This
holds equally true for referring to users and OFBiz integrators on the
homepage. In stead of burying links to sites of users (let's face it: these
are businesses) and system integrators/implementers deep in some wiki page,
the higher these are ranked in the site (closer to the home page) the
better it is for the site.

Several subject matter sites regarding the topic of outbound linking state
that outbound linking has a positive effect for the site that provides the
links. And in this case of the OFBiz project it will lead to higher ranking
when persons search for any of the keywords in the homepage. Thus leading
to more traffic to the site, and hopefully a bigger community.

Regards,


Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

[Pierre Smits]

Though the site of Hans Bakker may suggest that it is an official OFBiz
site, it is not.

Furthermore, it shows wrong information regarding committers in the
providers overview/map.

Regard,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

I guess that you could create a patch with the proposed changes and then create a Jira ticket, then start a voting thread in the dev list.

Before we go into it, I anticipate here some conditions that I think are important:
* I would like to review examples from other ASF projects doing the same; in this thread it was mentioned that several other projects are doing the same; I don't have time to research but if a volunteer could provide a list of projects and URLs of such documents I would be happy to review them
* remove from the documents any links to external sites that are not strictly following the ASF trademark guidelines; this includes all the sites containing the OFBiz name in the domain (e.g. ofbiz.info)
* the link from the OFBiz website should have enough information to clearly show that the referenced documents are not under the control of the PMC, but instead they are "open" documents at the disposal of the public
* the same disclaimer is added at the top of each page
* the documents open in a different tab (i.e. they use the "target" attribute)
* they are not added to the top navigation bar; my preference would be to add them to the body of the index page, in this paragraph:

"For answers to your questions you might find the following documents useful:
        • Documentation
        • Documentation - Project Overview
        • Documentation - Getting Started"

* we define clear rules on the format and content of these pages: define the column and content that each field can contain, the order of the entries, define if there are minimal requirements for publishing a company/site, define the amount of text each field can have, where external links can be defined

Jacopo

On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nick Rosser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the originally proposed change?
>
> Nick
>
> On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it would not penalize other sites...
>>
>> This done we could block the page for users who would like to exceed their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how that works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page access)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
>>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there are several companies in the page that mention the term "contributors" even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is monitoring for violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see pages that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially endorsed by the project.
>>>
>>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF is clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link them from the main site.
>>>
>>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers page
>>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>>>
>>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible. Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by someone and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to separate contributors from committers in this column.
>>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
>>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW, Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed) and committers in this list?
>>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided it  was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of separating concerns.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely publish this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the PMC has to endorse them or fix them.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

[Paul Piper]

Perhaps in order to add my own 2 cents to this debate:

The way I see it, OFbiz is need for the carousel images, although they should be updated. Rereading the content, i noticed that the information do not really stand for much, and though they are eye-pleasing I highly doubt that they are being read. What we would need is a set of actual messages we want to stand for. Topics could be:

1. Open Source - Strong Community
2. Full Business Solution
3. Flexible ERP Framework
4. Feature-Rich eCommerce used by many

The images and messages should add to that. Currently, there is only eCommerce stores represented, though by the above topics only 1 of them should even feature stores (or brand-logos to give more the feel of the 250+ implementation we currently got). The others should rather feature a source code sample (open-source),  versatile business applications and how easily one can connect OFBiz with other systems.


-----
As far as the contributors debate is concerned: I must say that I have a growing disdain of the current use of the phrases "Commiters" "Contributors" and "PMC Member". Especially in the world of Apache, I am used to having a flexible leadership and group-effort. Over the years, I have learned, however that the OFbiz community works alot different from it. I think I can say that my team and I have added quite a bit of value to the project, by being involved in the ml, representing OFBiz at the Apache-Con, writing articles to magazines, contributing software code (Solr component, Seo enhancements, CMS integration sample, Axis2 implementation etc.), though we are stuck being in the "contributors" list. I am not down-talking the achivements of others, but one has to admit that the use of the phrases is rather random. Other huge contributors seem to share a similar fate.

The reason i am bringing it up here, is because the ml has the tendency to downtalk the contributions of others, contributions that the community is in desperate need for. Anything contributed is an investment by the individual, no matter in which form (even discussions on the ml add to it in my perspective) and the current selection of "rank" over actual contribution is a state that i find deeply disturbing and worrisome.

[Jacques Le Roux]

Inline...

Le 20/02/2014 10:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> I guess that you could create a patch with the proposed changes and then create a Jira ticket, then start a voting thread in the dev list.

If there are changes in wiki, maybe better to simply discuss them here
(or in a Jira indeed to keep things focused) about changes to do and get
a consensus on what to do and not. Then any wiki contributor could do it...

>
> Before we go into it, I anticipate here some conditions that I think are important:
> * I would like to review examples from other ASF projects doing the same; in this thread it was mentioned that several other projects are doing the same; I don't have time to research but if a volunteer could provide a list of projects and URLs of such documents I would be happy to review them
> * remove from the documents any links to external sites that are not strictly following the ASF trademark guidelines; this includes all the sites containing the OFBiz name in the domain (e.g. ofbiz.info)

I totally second this!

> * the link from the OFBiz website should have enough information to clearly show that the referenced documents are not under the control of the PMC, but instead they are "open" documents at the disposal of the public

I think it's enough to put the disclaimer in the concerned pages

> * the same disclaimer is added at the top of each page
> * the documents open in a different tab (i.e. they use the "target" attribute)
> * they are not added to the top navigation bar; my preference would be to add them to the body of the index page, in this paragraph:
>
> "For answers to your questions you might find the following documents useful:
> • Documentation
> • Documentation - Project Overview
> • Documentation - Getting Started"

I believe we could add 2 links in the Resources & Tools section (or
create a new section?) in the main page as long as there are disclaimers
in the concerned pages. The goal is to make these links obvious to users

>
> * we define clear rules on the format and content of these pages: define the column and content that each field can contain, the order of the entries, define if there are minimal requirements for publishing a company/site, define the amount of text each field can have, where external links can be defined

+1

Jacques

>
> Jacopo
>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nick Rosser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the originally proposed change?
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it would not penalize other sites...
>>>
>>> This done we could block the page for users who would like to exceed their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how that works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page access)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>>>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
>>>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there are several companies in the page that mention the term "contributors" even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is monitoring for violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see pages that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially endorsed by the project.
>>>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF is clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link them from the main site.
>>>>
>>>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers page
>>>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible. Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by someone and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to separate contributors from committers in this column.
>>>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
>>>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW, Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed) and committers in this list?
>>>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided it  was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of separating concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>>>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely publish this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the PMC has to endorse them or fix them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

This is known for long and we (mostly I) have asked Hans to clean it
many times
He did some for (one of?) his twitter account
https://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz though I always wondered if this is
really "casher", but who cares?
The same question comes for https://twitter.com/ofbiz_biz
Unfortunately, etc.

The last time I asked for I got good feedbacks for most sites, so I
think we can come to a consensus

Jacques
PS: please don't believe that I like to pass so much time in such admin
tasks :(


Le 20/02/2014 09:20, Pierre Smits a écrit :

> Though the site of Hans Bakker may suggest that it is an official OFBiz
> site, it is not.
>
> Furthermore, it shows wrong information regarding committers in the
> providers overview/map.
>
> Regard,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Inline
Le 20/02/2014 11:14, Paul Piper a écrit :

> Perhaps in order to add my own 2 cents to this debate:
>
> The way I see it, OFbiz is need for the carousel images, although they
> should be updated. Rereading the content, i noticed that the information do
> not really stand for much, and though they are eye-pleasing I highly doubt
> that they are being read. What we would need is a set of actual messages we
> want to stand for. Topics could be:
>
> 1. Open Source - Strong Community
> 2. Full Business Solution
> 3. Flexible ERP Framework
> 4. Feature-Rich eCommerce used by many
>
> The images and messages should add to that. Currently, there is only
> eCommerce stores represented, though by the above topics only 1 of them
> should even feature stores (or brand-logos to give more the feel of the 250+
> implementation we currently got). The others should rather feature a source
> code sample (open-source),  versatile business applications and how easily
> one can connect OFBiz with other systems.
>

This sounds like a start for a brainstorming about what should be in
this carousel...

Jacques

> -----
> As far as the contributors debate is concerned: I must say that I have a
> growing disdain of the current use of the phrases "Commiters" "Contributors"
> and "PMC Member". Especially in the world of Apache, I am used to having a
> flexible leadership and group-effort. Over the years, I have learned,
> however that the OFbiz community works alot different from it. I think I can
> say that my team and I have added quite a bit of value to the project, by
> being involved in the ml, representing OFBiz at the Apache-Con, writing
> articles to magazines, contributing software code (Solr component, Seo
> enhancements, CMS integration sample, Axis2 implementation etc.), though we
> are stuck being in the "contributors" list. I am not down-talking the
> achivements of others, but one has to admit that the use of the phrases is
> rather random. Other huge contributors seem to share a similar fate.
>
> The reason i am bringing it up here, is because the ml has the tendency to
> downtalk the contributions of others, contributions that the community is in
> desperate need for. Anything contributed is an investment by the individual,
> no matter in which form (even discussions on the ml add to it in my
> perspective) and the current selection of "rank" over actual contribution is
> a state that i find deeply disturbing and worrisome.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-org-site-easier-navigation-to-Service-Providers-and-End-Users-tp4648057p4648413.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I like Jacopo's answer!

Jacques

Le 19/02/2014 23:32, Nick Rosser a écrit :

> With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the
> originally proposed change?
>
> Nick
>
> On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for
>> violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it
>> would not penalize other sites...
>>
>> This done we could block the page for users who would like to exceed
>> their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how that
>> works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page access)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must
>>>> be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
>>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have
>>>> clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can
>>>> add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only
>>>> companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there
>>>> are several companies in the page that mention the term
>>>> "contributors" even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz
>>>> PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is monitoring for
>>>> violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see pages
>>>> that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially endorsed by
>>>> the project.
>>>
>>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF
>>> is clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link
>>> them from the main site.
>>>
>>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers 
>>> page
>>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
>>> independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of
>>> the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will
>>> certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>>>
>>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own
>>> decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible.
>>> Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by someone
>>> and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to separate
>>> contributors from committers in this column.
>>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
>>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW,
>>> Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed)
>>> and committers in this list?
>>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided
>>> it  was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of
>>> separating concerns.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on
>>>>> these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely
>>>> publish this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the
>>>> PMC has to endorse them or fix them.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

[Nick Rosser-2]

I didn't do an exhaustive search but the Active-MQ project has a link to
"users":

    http://activemq.apache.org/users.html

This is an "internal" doc -- not an external link.

Note that they also have a "Team" link which lists all active Committers
and Contributors.

And also a "Projects using" link which lists a bunch of projects that
include the technology.

I haven't specifically found anything that lists the equivalent of
"service providers" but still maintain that having this is critical for
an organization considering adopting OFBiz for a bet-your-business
software solution.

Carousel: all good points being raised -- showing key benefits and
client usage would be a nice upgrade.


On 2/20/2014 5:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Inline...
>
> Le 20/02/2014 10:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> I guess that you could create a patch with the proposed changes and
>> then create a Jira ticket, then start a voting thread in the dev list.
>
> If there are changes in wiki, maybe better to simply discuss them here
> (or in a Jira indeed to keep things focused) about changes to do and
> get a consensus on what to do and not. Then any wiki contributor could
> do it...
>
>>
>> Before we go into it, I anticipate here some conditions that I think
>> are important:
>> * I would like to review examples from other ASF projects doing the
>> same; in this thread it was mentioned that several other projects are
>> doing the same; I don't have time to research but if a volunteer
>> could provide a list of projects and URLs of such documents I would
>> be happy to review them
>> * remove from the documents any links to external sites that are not
>> strictly following the ASF trademark guidelines; this includes all
>> the sites containing the OFBiz name in the domain (e.g. ofbiz.info)
>
> I totally second this!
>
>> * the link from the OFBiz website should have enough information to
>> clearly show that the referenced documents are not under the control
>> of the PMC, but instead they are "open" documents at the disposal of
>> the public
>
> I think it's enough to put the disclaimer in the concerned pages
>
>> * the same disclaimer is added at the top of each page
>> * the documents open in a different tab (i.e. they use the "target"
>> attribute)
>> * they are not added to the top navigation bar; my preference would
>> be to add them to the body of the index page, in this paragraph:
>>
>> "For answers to your questions you might find the following documents
>> useful:
>>     • Documentation
>>     • Documentation - Project Overview
>>     • Documentation - Getting Started"
>
> I believe we could add 2 links in the Resources & Tools section (or
> create a new section?) in the main page as long as there are
> disclaimers in the concerned pages. The goal is to make these links
> obvious to users
>
>>
>> * we define clear rules on the format and content of these pages:
>> define the column and content that each field can contain, the order
>> of the entries, define if there are minimal requirements for
>> publishing a company/site, define the amount of text each field can
>> have, where external links can be defined
>
> +1
>
> Jacques
>
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nick Rosser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the
>>> originally proposed change?
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for
>>>> violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it
>>>> would not penalize other sites...
>>>>
>>>> This done we could block the page for users who would like to
>>>> exceed their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how
>>>> that works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page
>>>> access)
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>>>>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and
>>>>>> must be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its
>>>>>> publication.
>>>>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have
>>>>>> clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can
>>>>>> add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only
>>>>>> companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there
>>>>>> are several companies in the page that mention the term
>>>>>> "contributors" even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz
>>>>>> PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is monitoring
>>>>>> for violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see
>>>>>> pages that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially
>>>>>> endorsed by the project.
>>>>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF
>>>>> is clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link
>>>>> them from the main site.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers 
>>>>> page
>>>>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
>>>>> independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top
>>>>> of the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we
>>>>> will certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own
>>>>> decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible.
>>>>> Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by
>>>>> someone and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to
>>>>> separate contributors from committers in this column.
>>>>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
>>>>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW,
>>>>> Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed)
>>>>> and committers in this list?
>>>>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided
>>>>> it  was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of
>>>>> separating concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues
>>>>>>> on these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>>>>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely
>>>>>> publish this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the
>>>>>> PMC has to endorse them or fix them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>

[Nick Rosser-2]

Three Apache project examples that have "service provider" page:

Clearly lists "paid support" options, with links to integrators:
http://cayenne.apache.org/support.html

Link from main page to "Professional Services":
http://cocoon.apache.org/1271_1_1.html

This lists committers and contributors with a link to the organization:
http://accumulo.apache.org/people.html

Nick

On 2/20/2014 7:31 AM, Nick Rosser wrote:

> I didn't do an exhaustive search but the Active-MQ project has a link
> to "users":
>
>    http://activemq.apache.org/users.html
>
> This is an "internal" doc -- not an external link.
>
> Note that they also have a "Team" link which lists all active
> Committers and Contributors.
>
> And also a "Projects using" link which lists a bunch of projects that
> include the technology.
>
> I haven't specifically found anything that lists the equivalent of
> "service providers" but still maintain that having this is critical
> for an organization considering adopting OFBiz for a bet-your-business
> software solution.
>
> Carousel: all good points being raised -- showing key benefits and
> client usage would be a nice upgrade.
>
>
> On 2/20/2014 5:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Inline...
>>
>> Le 20/02/2014 10:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>> I guess that you could create a patch with the proposed changes and
>>> then create a Jira ticket, then start a voting thread in the dev list.
>>
>> If there are changes in wiki, maybe better to simply discuss them
>> here (or in a Jira indeed to keep things focused) about changes to do
>> and get a consensus on what to do and not. Then any wiki contributor
>> could do it...
>>
>>>
>>> Before we go into it, I anticipate here some conditions that I think
>>> are important:
>>> * I would like to review examples from other ASF projects doing the
>>> same; in this thread it was mentioned that several other projects
>>> are doing the same; I don't have time to research but if a volunteer
>>> could provide a list of projects and URLs of such documents I would
>>> be happy to review them
>>> * remove from the documents any links to external sites that are not
>>> strictly following the ASF trademark guidelines; this includes all
>>> the sites containing the OFBiz name in the domain (e.g. ofbiz.info)
>>
>> I totally second this!
>>
>>> * the link from the OFBiz website should have enough information to
>>> clearly show that the referenced documents are not under the control
>>> of the PMC, but instead they are "open" documents at the disposal of
>>> the public
>>
>> I think it's enough to put the disclaimer in the concerned pages
>>
>>> * the same disclaimer is added at the top of each page
>>> * the documents open in a different tab (i.e. they use the "target"
>>> attribute)
>>> * they are not added to the top navigation bar; my preference would
>>> be to add them to the body of the index page, in this paragraph:
>>>
>>> "For answers to your questions you might find the following
>>> documents useful:
>>>     • Documentation
>>>     • Documentation - Project Overview
>>>     • Documentation - Getting Started"
>>
>> I believe we could add 2 links in the Resources & Tools section (or
>> create a new section?) in the main page as long as there are
>> disclaimers in the concerned pages. The goal is to make these links
>> obvious to users
>>
>>>
>>> * we define clear rules on the format and content of these pages:
>>> define the column and content that each field can contain, the order
>>> of the entries, define if there are minimal requirements for
>>> publishing a company/site, define the amount of text each field can
>>> have, where external links can be defined
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nick Rosser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the
>>>> originally proposed change?
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for
>>>>> violation: should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it
>>>>> would not penalize other sites...
>>>>>
>>>>> This done we could block the page for users who would like to
>>>>> exceed their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how
>>>>> that works, see for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page
>>>>> access)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
>>>>>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and
>>>>>>> must be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its
>>>>>>> publication.
>>>>>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have
>>>>>>> clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can
>>>>>>> add/move my company to the top, someone could decide that only
>>>>>>> companies with committers can appear there (I see now that there
>>>>>>> are several companies in the page that mention the term
>>>>>>> "contributors" even if this is not a role assigned by the OFBiz
>>>>>>> PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is monitoring
>>>>>>> for violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see
>>>>>>> pages that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially
>>>>>>> endorsed by the project.
>>>>>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the
>>>>>> ASF is clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and
>>>>>> link them from the main site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providers 
>>>>>> page
>>>>>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
>>>>>> independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top
>>>>>> of the list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we
>>>>>> will certainly alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own
>>>>>> decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible.
>>>>>> Contributor is indeed not an official role. It was added by
>>>>>> someone and I decided to keep the idea. Because it allows to
>>>>>> separate contributors from committers in this column.
>>>>>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
>>>>>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members
>>>>>> (IIRW, Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I
>>>>>> followed) and committers in this list?
>>>>>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided
>>>>>> it  was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of
>>>>>> separating concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues
>>>>>>>> on these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
>>>>>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely
>>>>>>> publish this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the
>>>>>>> PMC has to endorse them or fix them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Pierre Smits]

Not only those, but also:

   - any23
   - APR
   - Cassandra


Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

[Pierre Smits]

I would say that not complying with/to ASF regulations and guidelines is a
sure path to lose merit in the community.

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is known for long and we (mostly I) have asked Hans to clean it many
> times
> He did some for (one of?) his twitter account https://twitter.com/apache_
> ofbiz though I always wondered if this is really "casher", but who cares?
> The same question comes for https://twitter.com/ofbiz_biz
> Unfortunately, etc.
>
> The last time I asked for I got good feedbacks for most sites, so I think
> we can come to a consensus
>
> Jacques
> PS: please don't believe that I like to pass so much time in such admin
> tasks :(
>
>
> Le 20/02/2014 09:20, Pierre Smits a écrit :
>
>> Though the site of Hans Bakker may suggest that it is an official OFBiz
>> site, it is not.
>>
>> Furthermore, it shows wrong information regarding committers in the
>> providers overview/map.
>>
>> Regard,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>
>>

[Pierre Smits]

The reply by Jacopo definitely reads more like trying to conceive consensus.

Maybe it would be good to contact the PMC chairs of the other project (and
perhaps also COMDEV) to see what their policy is on this subject) and
achieve alignment regarding ruling.

Regards,


Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I guess that you could create a patch with the proposed changes and then
> create a Jira ticket, then start a voting thread in the dev list.
>
> Before we go into it, I anticipate here some conditions that I think are
> important:
> * I would like to review examples from other ASF projects doing the same;
> in this thread it was mentioned that several other projects are doing the
> same; I don't have time to research but if a volunteer could provide a list
> of projects and URLs of such documents I would be happy to review them
> * remove from the documents any links to external sites that are not
> strictly following the ASF trademark guidelines; this includes all the
> sites containing the OFBiz name in the domain (e.g. ofbiz.info)
> * the link from the OFBiz website should have enough information to
> clearly show that the referenced documents are not under the control of the
> PMC, but instead they are "open" documents at the disposal of the public
> * the same disclaimer is added at the top of each page
> * the documents open in a different tab (i.e. they use the "target"
> attribute)
> * they are not added to the top navigation bar; my preference would be to
> add them to the body of the index page, in this paragraph:
>
> "For answers to your questions you might find the following documents
> useful:
>         * Documentation
>         * Documentation - Project Overview
>         * Documentation - Getting Started"
>
> * we define clear rules on the format and content of these pages: define
> the column and content that each field can contain, the order of the
> entries, define if there are minimal requirements for publishing a
> company/site, define the amount of text each field can have, where external
> links can be defined
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nick Rosser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > With Hans joining the "yes" vote can we go ahead and action the
> originally proposed change?
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > On 2/19/2014 6:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >> BTW, last thought on this about external sites monitored for violation:
> should we not rather remove than monitor them? Then it would not penalize
> other sites...
> >>
> >> This done we could block the page for users who would like to exceed
> their rights to edit (though I have still to understand how that works, see
> for instance Pierre's request about Roadmap page access)
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >> Le 19/02/2014 11:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> >>> Le 19/02/2014 07:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> >>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Please could you point the issues you see there?
> >>>> The information published in the OFBiz website is official and must
> be endorsed and approved by the OFBiz PMC before its publication.
> >>>> The information in the Wiki is not; specifically, we do not have
> clear rules that govern the "users" and "providers" list: I can add/move my
> company to the top, someone could decide that only companies with
> committers can appear there (I see now that there are several companies in
> the page that mention the term "contributors" even if this is not a role
> assigned by the OFBiz PMC), I see links to external sites that the ASF is
> monitoring for violations to the ASF and OFBiz trademarks, in general I see
> pages that are a mess and clearly they can't be officially endorsed by the
> project.
> >>>
> >>> Having links to external sites monitored for violations by the ASF is
> clearly an issue which prevents to endorse these pages and link them from
> the main site.
> >>>
> >>> Some time ago, I added a note on top of the
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Service+Providerspage
> >>> <<We (OFBiz committers) keep an eye on this list in order to keep
> independent committers and companies with committer(s) at the top of the
> list. Else no order is specifically required so far (we will certainly
> alphabetically order the lists later), thank you>>
> >>>
> >>> Actually, though I wrote "We (OFBiz committers)" it was my own
> decision to monitor and keep this page as clean as possible. Contributor is
> indeed not an official role. It was added by someone and I decided to keep
> the idea. Because it allows to separate contributors from committers in
> this column.
> >>> Maybe the title of the column is not clear?
> >>> Or maybe, as it was before, we should keep only PMC members (IIRW,
> Adrian also added the PMC member role in this list and I followed) and
> committers in this list?
> >>> I thought about adding a new column for contributors, but decided it
>  was a bit too much, this could be done also, for the sake of separating
> concerns.
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>>>> I believe we should trust the community and if there are issues on
> these pages we should fix those issues, this is our duty.
> >>>> It is good to allocate some space to the community to freely publish
> this kind of information, but this doesn't mean that the PMC has to endorse
> them or fix them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacopo
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>