[pmwiki-users] PmWiki past, present and future (was: Any hope for 2.2.0 stable release?)
henrik.bechmann at sympatico.ca
Fri Jan 16 20:54:32 CST 2009
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.
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts!
And Patrick, as always, all the best!!
john.rankin at affinity.co.nz wrote:
>> >>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...
> 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.
>> >>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.
> 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?
>> - Henrik
>> Radu Luchian wrote:
>>> 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.
> 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.
>>> 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.
> I think we could devise a robust scheme for what "thoroughly tested"
> means for this community. I would add "and documented".
>>> 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.
> 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.
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM, John Rankin
>>> <john.rankin at affinity.co.nz <mailto:john.rankin at affinity.co.nz>> wrote:
>>> John Rankin
>>> Affinity Limited
>>> T 64 4 495 3737
>>> F 64 4 473 7991
>>> 021 RANKIN
>>> john.rankin at affinity.co.nz <mailto:john.rankin at affinity.co.nz>
>>> www.affinity.co.nz <http://www.affinity.co.nz>
>> Henrik Bechmann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pmwiki-users