Cleaning Up Codev

While reading the TWikiIRC log I found that the "Cleaning out Codev" theme appeared again. This time KennethLavrsen said:

No matter what - cleaning out Codev does not start with a new web. It starts with a plan and commitment.

And I agree 100% with him. So, here is the plan I propose.

The Problem, The solution, The Goal

Kenneth Lavrsen thanks Rafael for following up on the discussion from IRC

The Problem

• It is a general observation that it is difficult to find anything in Codev.
• Codev is the web for developers. Developers feel that they should have a common ownership of the web.
• All previous attempts have failed because of lack of commitment to actually put a lot of work hours into it.
• Individuals don't really know where to begin and where to end.
• The development team probably doesn't know or agree how to do it.

The solution

• Define a goal which is simple and achievable
• Divide the work into little pieces and get commitment from named individuals
• Agree on this plan (this topic) and start doing it nice and easy.

The Goal

• Reduce the number of gateway topics to the few that each match the different purposes of Codev.
• Move open bugs reports to the much better suited and already existing and well working Bugs web on "develop".
• Handle stale content so it does not become a cloud of noise or cloud of smole.
  • DECISION NEEDED - (Edinburgh meeting subject)
    • Do we delete anything?
    • Do we move it to alternative attic web?
    • Do we in some other way mark those topics so they are not per default showing up in searches etc.?

The Plan

If you want to volunteer, or just support this initiative, sign up below and/or add content to the proper section.

Volunteers

• KennethLavrsen
• MeredithLesly
• RafaelAlvarez

Supporters

• CrawfordCurrie
  • after getting told off for taking the initiative and putting in several hours of effort on this once before, I don't feel inclined to put any more hours into it. However I applaud the initiative.
  • My personal goal is to collect cookbooks, FAQs and other support resources in one place.

Lists

Major Gateway Topics

• DakarRelease
• CairoRelease
• BeijingRelease
• AthensRelease
• FeatureDone

Proposals to reduce current major gateway topics

• Identify and move relevant bug reports to the Bugs web

WebForm -> ChangeProposalForm map

• I wouldn't worry about the WebForm -> ChangeProposalForm map. Any topic on WebForm should be an old tracking topic and therefore no longer relevent any more and can be ignored. There are some topics which I have a list of topics that have still relevent WebForm Classifications that need to be changed to BasicForm. (Please leave that to me as there are some exceptions.) Once that is done everything left on WebForm can be blindly archived. -- SamHasler - 01 May 2006

Closed Items definition

• If a topic has a ChangeProposalForm, and CurrentState is ImplementedAsExtension, ReadyForMerge, MergedToCore or NeedsARethink
• If a topic is a BugReport that are UnderInvestigation and is no longer relevant

Discussion

Script to reorganize Codev

I propose a modified version of what is described in ScriptToReorganiseCodev:

• • Migrate the topics that use the old development workflow using WebForm to the new development workflow using ChangeProposalForm.
  • If a topic has not been edited for at least a year, add it to CategoryStale.
  • If a topic has RelatedTopics, create them as WikiBadges in the body of the text.
  • If a topic represents a closed issue, move it to the Attic web.
  • If a topic has a BasicForm with TopicClassification set to BrainstormingIdea or NextGeneration, then keep it in Codev, adding it to CategoryBrainstorming

• • If a topic has a BasicForm with TopicClassification set to DefineTerm, then keep it in Codev, adding it to CategoryGlossary?
  • If a topic has a BasicForm with TopicClassification set to TWikiCommunity, TWikiAdvocacy or TWikiVsOtherProducts, keep it and add it to CategoryMarketing

A tarball of Codev's content is useful to test the script and to measure it's effectivenes.

To verify results, the script must produce a list of topics affected and not affected by it. The final verification must be a manual check between the sandboxed run and the "production" run.