<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
John,<br>
<br>
As Patrick has articulated a plan (which I am glad incorporates the key
concept of starting on the road to active community involvement in the
core), I will defer to him now.<br>
<br>
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts!<br>
<br>
And Patrick, as always, all the best!!<br>
<br>
- Henrik<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:john.rankin@affinity.co.nz">john.rankin@affinity.co.nz</a> wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:51179.210.185.10.148.1232084711.squirrel@intranet.affinity.co.nz"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> >>and several default config files
It wouldn't be that big a reach to have a wiki page with some checkmarks
to activate or de-activate plugins...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, although it may be several such pages eventually!
One reason I used the LaTeX terminology of package is that it
embodies the idea of not just code, but documentation too. To me,
plugin is a code-centric word, but that may just be me. So the
above wiki page would have not just activation/deactivation
power, but also links to each package's documentation.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> >>We just need to be doing more of what we have so far.
I am really proposing one key change: a public subsite for development,
with some kind of organized community support.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think I agree, but it may be useful to expand this a bit.
How would "a public subsite for development" work and to
what extent is this compatible with my suggestion of a smaller
*and stable* core, with an "organized community" to provide a
replicable process for adding new packages to the distribution,
provided that they meet an agreed quality standard?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Henrik
Radu Luchian wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Now that was a message I thoroughly agree with.
And, luckily, it presents things just as they are now, with core
scripts which are there in the distribution, but are not activated.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The key change is that the community would have a process for
people other than Pm to make contributions to the distribution,
without affecting the core. So yes, I took the existing model and
tried to generalise it a bit, learning from the LaTeX model to do so.
So I distinguish between the core, which is stable and as small as
possible (but no smaller), and the distribution, which contains a
range of packages, documented and tested, by many authors. The
core could well continue to have a single author, i.e. Pm.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What I would like to finally see would be a core distribution
containing all thoroughly tested scripts, and several default config
files: one with the bare minimum functionality for a wiki (view, edit,
track and manage wiki pages with a minimum of formatting and markup),
and one sample config for a few types of use the wiki may be applied
to, each config having an active supervising developer. That would
provide new users with the maximum return to the minimum amount of
invested time and make pmwiki a real breeze to adopt.
But that wish is probably too ambitious, for 'thoroughly tested' is
never a final definition.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think we could devise a robust scheme for what "thoroughly tested"
means for this community. I would add "and documented".
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As for a successful community model to fit Pmwiki's philosophy, I
could quote ours :)
We just need to be doing more of what we have so far.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think we need to distinguish between the success of the community
(and the PmWiki community is great because people are almost
always constructive, even when they disagree, as reasonable people
do from time to time), and the strength of the community's processes.
I think the point Henrik and others have made (and the reason I
wrote such a long post before) is that the community now has an
opportunity to take PmWiki to the next level of maturity, but that
will require care so as not to kill the magic. So I proposed the
LaTeX community model, because they make distributions with
contributions from many, many authors, all of which meet
certain standards. While I don't think PmWiki needs their level
of structure, there is much we can learn from them.
There may be a more suitable model, of course.
JR
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cheers,
Radu
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM, John Rankin
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:john.rankin@affinity.co.nz">john.rankin@affinity.co.nz</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john.rankin@affinity.co.nz"><mailto:john.rankin@affinity.co.nz></a>> wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
<deleted/>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> JR
--
John Rankin
Affinity Limited
T 64 4 495 3737
F 64 4 473 7991
021 RANKIN
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:john.rankin@affinity.co.nz">john.rankin@affinity.co.nz</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john.rankin@affinity.co.nz"><mailto:john.rankin@affinity.co.nz></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.affinity.co.nz">www.affinity.co.nz</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.affinity.co.nz"><http://www.affinity.co.nz></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
Henrik Bechmann
bechmann.ca
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Henrik Bechmann
bechmann.ca
</pre>
</body>
</html>