OLPC talk:Volunteer Infrastructure Group: Difference between revisions
(→Your ideas: +"Forge a software development community") |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
No gforge, gitorious, github, or launchpad for OLPC. Little FOSS cell phone projects have better software development community infrastructure than OLPC has managed. That a community might collectively work together to develop activities, rather than each being created in isolation, has repeatedly seemed alien to OLPC core. Let alone community or infrastructure being a project roadmap objective. The open-source project with, hands down, the greatest potential to attract developers of any, has managed to almost entirely avoid doing so. And sometimes appears oddly puzzled and confused as to how. [[User:MitchellNCharity|MitchellNCharity]] 05:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
No gforge, gitorious, github, or launchpad for OLPC. Little FOSS cell phone projects have better software development community infrastructure than OLPC has managed. That a community might collectively work together to develop activities, rather than each being created in isolation, has repeatedly seemed alien to OLPC core. Let alone community or infrastructure being a project roadmap objective. The open-source project with, hands down, the greatest potential to attract developers of any, has managed to almost entirely avoid doing so. And sometimes appears oddly puzzled and confused as to how. [[User:MitchellNCharity|MitchellNCharity]] 05:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:What you say doesn't preclude a wiki, as you well know. It's clear that organization of Activity teams needs to be much improved to encourage development. It doesn't help that we break the api every few months :S. Christoph's Activity Handbook is a good step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. |
|||
:What would you specifically like to see? What do you think works best to organize activity development? I would love to see the VIG implement it. Send this to the mailing list, you have good points. [[User:Sethwoodworth|Seth]] 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== I-g documentation discussion == |
== I-g documentation discussion == |
||
Revision as of 00:42, 21 September 2008
Your ideas
IRC gateway for the Big Bosses
It might be nice to provide a web irc gateway for the big bosses in case they need to ping people who typically hang out there. There could even be a channel on oftc somewhere where knowledgeable people could hang out to answer VIP questions. Just an idea Seth 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Forge a software development community
This wiki should be replaced. Groups of pages need to be owned by individual people. Only they can write to them. If you wish to contribute, you should email them patches. If you wish to create your own pages, you should fill out a form, and email it to the wiki administrator. What? You what? You think this profoundly misguided? Disastrous? Sure to stop wiki development dead in its tracks? Certain to dissipate and prevent formation of a wiki development community? Well, yes. Of course. That's exactly what it's done for the activity development community.
No gforge, gitorious, github, or launchpad for OLPC. Little FOSS cell phone projects have better software development community infrastructure than OLPC has managed. That a community might collectively work together to develop activities, rather than each being created in isolation, has repeatedly seemed alien to OLPC core. Let alone community or infrastructure being a project roadmap objective. The open-source project with, hands down, the greatest potential to attract developers of any, has managed to almost entirely avoid doing so. And sometimes appears oddly puzzled and confused as to how. MitchellNCharity 05:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- What you say doesn't preclude a wiki, as you well know. It's clear that organization of Activity teams needs to be much improved to encourage development. It doesn't help that we break the api every few months :S. Christoph's Activity Handbook is a good step in the right direction, but not nearly enough.
- What would you specifically like to see? What do you think works best to organize activity development? I would love to see the VIG implement it. Send this to the mailing list, you have good points. Seth 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I-g documentation discussion
Currently most sysadmin documentation is on OLPC internal wiki, which is generally only open to NDA'ed employees and select contractors.
Here are some proposals on how to publish and protect i-g documentation.
- Put docs, passwords and other information onto a protected area of teamwiki.
- Put the information onto public wiki, and use encryption such as gpg to encipher sensitive data such as passwords.
- Use git, and rely on git access controls for protection. Possibly transclude git to wiki.
- Put data into a text file on the root directory of a machine.
Please edit and add arguments pro and con.
Hhardy 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
See Michael's proposed infrastructure-documentation-system requirements and comments on that Talk page