Hi, To try to bring our wiki 'up to date' (as in, no longer talking about CVS), I've gone through and rewritten a lot of the wiki content for our main landing pages: our front page, the software and specifications pages, the infrastructure pages, and even (to an extent) the mission statement. A lot of this is trying to describe how we've interpreted these things over the past ten years anyway: the criteria we've used when judging new project applications, for example. It'd be great to get some feedback on these if you have anything to contribute. Also, speaking of contribution, if anyone has time and would like to prototype using GitLab CI for the main wiki content, that would be magnificent. I would like to do this so people can send changes to our web content to review without having an account created by someone with SSH access - just like our code. Cheers, Daniel
Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> writes:> It'd be great to get some feedback on these if you have anything to > contribute.I've read through all of the new pages. I fixed some formatting issues in the mission statement, but otherwise I'm pretty happy with the new content. About the only change I'd suggest is that we use the term 'free software desktop' instead of 'open source desktop'. But, I also understand why that term is both confusing and potentially contentious. -- -keith -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/freedesktop/attachments/20190218/2d929fc4/attachment.sig>
On 02/18/19 01:32 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:> Hi, > To try to bring our wiki 'up to date' (as in, no longer talking about > CVS), I've gone through and rewritten a lot of the wiki content for > our main landing pages: our front page, the software and > specifications pages, the infrastructure pages, and even (to an > extent) the mission statement. > > A lot of this is trying to describe how we've interpreted these things > over the past ten years anyway: the criteria we've used when judging > new project applications, for example. > > It'd be great to get some feedback on these if you have anything to contribute.Looks good. A couple small suggestions: - Shouldn't the sponsors section on the front page say something about SPI? - On the software page, why are libinput & libevdev under "other hardware" instead of "Input, internationalisation (i18n), and font rendering"? - Should the mission statement include something about welcoming new contributors (whether developers, designers, doc writers, testers, or translators) and helping them learn & grow? We've seen far too much on fd.o stagnate as people move on and there's no one there to replace them. (Maybe include a link to the GettingInvolved page here.) -alan-
Hi, On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 05:35, Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at oracle.com> wrote:> On 02/18/19 01:32 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > It'd be great to get some feedback on these if you have anything to contribute. > > Looks good. A couple small suggestions: > > - Shouldn't the sponsors section on the front page say something about SPI? > > - On the software page, why are libinput & libevdev under "other hardware" > instead of "Input, internationalisation (i18n), and font rendering"?Yeah, these two seem really obvious - fixed.> - Should the mission statement include something about welcoming new > contributors (whether developers, designers, doc writers, testers, > or translators) and helping them learn & grow? We've seen far too > much on fd.o stagnate as people move on and there's no one there to > replace them. (Maybe include a link to the GettingInvolved page here.)I've put this in the main index page, but it didn't really seem to fit in MissionStatement, which is more 'these are the sorts of projects we host' than 'this is what we are as an overarching project'. I'd be happy to see it in there if anyone wants to have a go, just couldn't see an easy way (though with my sinuses trying to escape the confines of my skull, I can't see a great deal at the moment). Cheers, Daniel
Hi, On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 22:09, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:> I've read through all of the new pages. I fixed some formatting issues in > the mission statement, but otherwise I'm pretty happy with the new > content. > > About the only change I'd suggest is that we use the term 'free software > desktop' instead of 'open source desktop'. But, I also understand why > that term is both confusing and potentially contentious.Thanks a lot for this! I'd rather avoid the free-software vs. open-source debate, yeah. Personally I use open-source because I feel free-software is frequently too exclusionary - but I'm not the organisation to begin with, and the organisation does literally have 'free' as the first four characters of its name ... I do think there's some value in keeping the 'open source' descriptor, since it's so much more widely recognised these days. Could we use 'free and open source' (or 'free software and open source') in the leading mentions then shorten it later? Or spell out FLOSS to begin with, then later just refer to it as FLOSS? It feels more unwieldy to me, but hey ho. Cheers, Daniel