Re: GSoC 2014: Summary so far, discussion starter: how to improve?

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 21, 2013, 10:04 UTC
Message-ID: <20131121100421.GA14066@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <87txf6jgmi.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:36:37AM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch> writes:
> 
> > * Does libgit2 want to remain under the Git umbrella, or participate
> >   on its own?
> >
> > * Figure out the wiki situation.  In previous years the project
> >   proposals and other important information were hosted at k.org [5] and
> >   github wikis [6].  Other options were floated, such as an official
> >   wiki hosted by github.  (This is somewhat of a contentious issue that
> >   spans beyond GSoC.)
> >
> > * Find an org admin and backup.  In previous years Shawn and Peff did
> >   this.  Would you do it again?
> 
> Any opinions on these points?

I'll answer them in reverse order. :)

I'm happy to be org admin again (or happy to give up the mantle if somebody else is interested).

Regarding the wiki, my main complaints about the k.org wiki have been:

  1. It was down last time we tried to use it for GSoC. :) This has
     since been fixed.

  2. I had the impression that spam was a problem and it needed a crew
     of scourers to find and remove it. That's a thankless job that I
     don't personally want to do. It looks like there is not much spam
     these days (perhaps due to k.org's login restrictions?), and people
     do remove it. So if there are sufficient volunteers, it may be a
     non-issue.

  3. You can't use git to edit it or view the history. These days we
     have the git-remote-mediawiki helper. I haven't done any real work
     with it, but I have played around and I think it may be sufficient.

  4. Mediawiki syntax sucks compared to Markdown. :)

     That's my personal feeling, but I recognize others may disagree. A
     syntax change might be seen as a disadvantage of moving by some. I
     can live with it (but I want to throw it out there in case
     everybody feels the same way).

The disadvantages / complications of moving to a different wiki (e.g., a GitHub wiki) are:

  1. It's non-zero work to set up, especially if we do not just use an
     out-of-the-box solution. I'd be in favor of some kind of static
     site generator, but then we have to pick one, style it, set up
     auto-build-on-push, etc. GitHub Pages would do most of the dirty
     work there, if we want to use it.

  2. Some solutions involve using non-free software or services, which
     some people may not like.

  3. What happens to the old wiki? Other sites link there, and it has
     content. Do we migrate the content? Do they both exist simultaneously?
     Is one just for GSoC stuff (which seems unnecessarily confusing to
     me)?

For libgit2, I think it makes sense to leave them under the Git umbrella and give them a slot or two as appropriate, as it saves administrative effort. But it is up to them if they want to split off into their own GSoC org. If that is the case, they will need an admin and to do a bunch of application paperwork. I believe we can give them a recommendation to help ease the process along.

-Peff