To add to that, there are really two wiki's - official docs (WW) and the informal docs (S2WIKI), and only the former requires a CLA. Anyone can access and edit the S2WIKI.
The fact that the main docs require an CLA is a business decision, and not a limitation of the wiki software. As Dave mentioned, we decided to require a CLA for WW because it is considered official, distributable documentation that contains copyrightable information. Don On 10/10/07, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- cilquirm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hadn't really started fragmenting anything yet. > > I was engaging in conversation. > > As was I. > > > My whole point was to get around the barrier of > > entry of engaging people to add and modify stuff. > > Getting someone else to maybe do it doesn't seem > > like a form of engagement. > > While I agree it would be better to have the > information "somewhere" rather than nowhere, it makes > way more sense to me to keep as much S2 documentation > as possible on the S2 Wiki. This means it gets > distributed with S2 itself. > > If filing a CLA is to high a barrier for someone then > adding a comment to a user-list email saying "I have > no CLA on file; could someone please add this?" seems > easier than that person creating a wiki space and > posting it there instead, plus then that knowledge > becomes part of the S2 project. > > I'm sure there's some documentation, use-cases, > tutorials, etc. that are more appropriate to keep > separate from the S2 wiki, but when it's (more or > less) core documentation I'd rather see it as part of > the project, that's all. > > d. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
