On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Gav... wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:18:58 -0800, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:06 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> NOTE: I'm making two assumptions here: (1) that we would never >>>> consider >>>> using a Wiki that didn't send page change notifications to our commits@ >>>> list >>>> (or maybe a dedicated wiki@), and (2) that any wiki service that the > ASF >>>> provided would be covered by their backup mechanisms. >>>> >>>> What say you? >>> >>> I'd like to add one more thing here. >>> >>> Presumably a primary goal in moving some content to a wiki is to be >>> able to widen the net of who can edit the pages. So we also need to >>> know how those controls work at ASF. While we may get tired of >>> applying and committing patches to some of the pages, it is a heck of >>> a lot better than a Wiki if these same users cannot just add the >>> content themselves. >> >> Re-reading, I see you touched on this a bit. I think you were >> implying we would open it up to anyone with an account to edit, >> provided there was an email list for the changes. I agree if that is >> where you were going. > > Wiki pages should be editable by those with : > > i. A cla on file. > ii. be a committer on the project that owns the wiki. > > In other words the wiki content should be treated like code, > wiki/documentation contributions from anyone outside the project would have > to be sent as a patch and applied by a committer.
I'm curious about this restriction/requirement. What's the purpose? Why *not* have an area that anybody can edit, or through which edits from anybody can be moderated? -Hyrum
