-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WG Infrastructure Proposal #146
Comments
I like the idea to use Github projects for the UGs, if this keeps the admin overhead low. It's better than letting the projects decide and all are using different tools. Since I cannot judge all implications at the moment, can we ran a little experiment with the planned Pattern UG? Can you create a Github project, and a (minimal) landing page pointing to the Github project? |
Rainer, I've setup the project at: I added you as admin, so you can do pretty much anything including adding new users (Settings -> Collaborators&Teams). For the landing page, you can probably just use the README. Alternatively you could create a wiki page, and just point to it from the README. Let me know if you have any questions. |
Hi @brianking, I like your suggestion of using the GitHub wiki for the WG documentation. I just tried it out and it looks like a good solution for documenting the patterns. We could link there from the README as you suggested. CC: @rersch |
Landing page is up on the test site: https://oslc.github.io/workgroups/lifecycle-integration-patterns/ Feel free to make a pull request to update the content, or send to me and I can update. |
I made a small change to the page and committed the change. |
I went ahead and pushed your change, it is live. Only I and the developers can push changes to the live site right now. FYI over the coming days we will likely be transitioning away from oslc.github.io as the live site, and instead using oslc.co. We try to deploy at least once a (work week) day. I think we should make a template for a WG landing page. What information needs to be on there? To start with, I would add:
Anything else? |
I assume you also plan a short description of the workgroup on the landing page (template) – right? On the “old” (open-services.net) Workgroups we also had a link to the meeting schedules. How about a link to (open) issues of the workgroup? Or how to submit issues for the WG? Where will the landing page be placed? Will it be the README.md of the Github project or We also should have a set of (setup) instructions for new workgroups. These could either be |
We need a link from the home page to the workgroups, I couldn't find one. The icons on the http://oslc.co/workgroups/ page are ok, but the text descriptions are partially occluded and can't be scrolled - there's no way to read the text. Hover over a workgroup further occludes the text and pops up the See more button. I would rather the text was scrollable and clicking on the workgroup name brought you to the workgroup home page. Hover buttons like that are a jarring UI. Need a link or paragraph on the bottom of the page to give instructions on creating a new workgroup. As far as the infrastructure is concerned, the instructions for workgroup creation could assume GitHub. If a workgroup wanted to use something else, they could and provide links in their home page. |
@jamsden the link to workgroups is in the Contribute page. Some things to note about the homepage is that
On the boxes I agree that the overall styling of the paragraphs are not good. And the hover had a different intent in concept than what's currently implemented. I'll revisit it some time soon. On Instructions Good suggestion. Perhaps adding a wiki page in this repository for it would be the best approach? And then we could link to it at the bottom of the page. |
Closing this as we all use GH in the OP and no WGs are needed any more. |
Currently Working Groups are:
e.g. http://open-services.net/workgroups/alm-plm-interoperability-2nd-edition/
e.g. http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-plm_open-services.net
e.g. http://open-services.net/forums/viewforum/23/
e.g. http://open-services.net/wiki/alm-plm-interoperability-2nd-edition/
We can still provide a landing page. I propose we keep the current url and as now, each WG would be a sub-page. We could provide a markdown template suitable for our Hugo installation that can just be cloned and deployed easily for new groups.
We will be retiring mailing lists and the current forum (archiving as read-only, and removing as necessary). However, both of these can be replaced with our new Discourse instance, which has both list-type and forum functionality built-in.
The big open question is about the wiki. My original plan was to setup and instance of MediaWiki. However, what this means is extra cost both in terms of $$$ (mainly hosting) and maintenance time (all wikis are spam magnets, and require user approval/monitoring). So the question is, can or should we provide some other way for WGs to document their activities? There are a few options:
I think we should move away from the idea that we need to provide all the infrastructure for the community, mainly because of the maintenance overhead. Most times, there is probably a better solution (free or not) out there anyway.
For this reason I propose for documentation we go for either Github or letting the WGs decide what they want to use.
- Brian
cc @rersch @wesleycoelho
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: