Tags:
create new tag
, view all tags

Guide Lines for Linking to Third Party Distributions of TWiki

The Download Page for a specific TWiki version

On the download page for a specific release the top section including the blue rounded corner box can only contain links to the current release of fully GPL open source (built from only TWiki's svn) downloads that are hosted on TWiki.org.

Below the first section we add a section for Additional Downloads of TWiki

In this download section anyone can add a link to a download if the following conditions are met.

  1. The links must be directly linking to - or lead to a page from where you can download a distribution of TWiki. Not just the generic homepage of your organization.
  2. The distribution must meet one or more of the following criteria
    • The distribution adds additional extensions such as skins, plugins 3rd party programs which have been tested and confirmed to work with TWiki.
    • The distribution is a pre-configured version of TWiki for a specific OS or other purpose.
    • The distribution is packaged with an installer.
    • The distribution is packaged as a virtual machine.
  3. A description of the source of the distribution is allowed. This can be text and one logo maximum WxH 100x20 pixels.
  4. The description must contain the exact version of TWiki that your distribution contains.

On the download page we additionally link to a generic page OtherTWikiDistributions on which the rules are more open allowing anyone to add an entire section with a short description of the distribution and several links to different versions and add reasonably sized graphics.

The OtherTWikiDistributions topic

  1. The links must be directly linking to - or lead to a page from where you can download a distribution of TWiki. Not just the generic homepage of your organization.
  2. The distribution must meet one or more of the following criteria
    • The distribution adds additional extensions such as skins, plugins, 3rd party programs which have been tested and confirmed to work with TWiki.
    • The distribution is a pre-configured version of TWiki for a specific OS or other purpose.
    • The distribution is packaged with an installer.
    • The distribution is packaged as a virtual machine.
  3. Each provider can add one section headlined with heading level 2. A banner or logo of maximum 468 x 60 pixels (standard full banner). Must be plain gif, jpg or png with no animations or flash.
  4. First come first served. First to add their link gets at the top. Next provider adds below.

-- Contributors: KennethLavrsen - 19 Jan 2008

Discussion

For TWiki.Net and Wikiring we know that both wants to be at the top. Kenneth will find a way to let the Goddess of Fortune settle who goes at the top.

-- KennethLavrsen - 19 Jan 2008

Rather than being portrayed to who are the distribution vendors, maybe it could be more appealing to end-users to know the focus of the distribution e.g. TracOnTWiki, CommunityTWiki, SoftwareManagementTWiki, ContentManagementTWiki, etc. regardless of who distributed it. wink

It'd be very fair to have it as such, IMHO, yet not neglecting who the distributor is from the acknowledgment(s) links. After all, end users' priority is not on who the distributor is, but on what the distro can do for them. wink

-- KwangErnLiew - 19 Jan 2008

In reality each 3rd party will have different focus. And it is my goal to give each 3rd party equal and fair exposure here on twiki.org.

The past days discussion about the history topic and the press release shows that publicly known and agreed guidelines are needed so that competition in future happens on the quality of the product and not based on power balance in the project. This ensures that each 3rd party can get their fair exposure under known and agreed guidelines. It does not prevent that we create additional topics here on twiki.org that indexes distributions in other ways.

When we make a guideline like this we should expect to redefine is at least annually. I believe the guideline above will cover well the need for a year to come and I do not believe we will see a large number of 3rd party distributions.

-- KennethLavrsen - 19 Jan 2008

Before we decide on this one, see additional idea in RevisitingDecisionNotToAllowLinkingToExternalTWikiDistros.

-- PeterThoeny - 20 Jan 2008

100x20 - text + logo? Logo only? 100x20 is 2000 pixels; could you use an 80x80 logo (only 1600) instead? If text is included, 100x20 is very small to get an adequate differentiating description into.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 21 Jan 2008

The 100x20 was to write the name of the company as graphics in a way that you can have in a bullet point. You have a small Wikiring logo in many of your plugins which is not more than 20 pixels high. On the download page I would like either text only or very discrete logos. The graphics is not instead of text. It is a supplement to text.

Example

  • CP/M version of TWiki - provided by T-logo-80x15.gif - the open source enterprise wiki

-- KennethLavrsen - 21 Jan 2008

Above guide line adjusted to meet the decision made at FreetownReleaseMeeting2008x01x21.

-- KennethLavrsen - 21 Jan 2008

I am glad we found an agreement. Kenneth, thank you very much for initiating this guideline!

-- PeterThoeny - 22 Jan 2008

DownloadTWikiSnap1.png

Reading all of the guidelines, I can't see why the current DownloadTWiki page is in conformance with it. Please revise it. This is irritating.

-- MichaelDaum - 09 Jul 2008

It looks like the guidelines are somewhat open to interpretation, for instance the size of the link text. But clear from the description is that the offered link should be in the block "Additional Downloads of TWiki".

-- ArthurClemens - 09 Jul 2008

The guideline reads "On the download page for a specific release the top section including the blue rounded corner box can only contain links to the current release of fully GPL open source (built from only TWiki's svn) downloads that are hosted on TWiki.org." .The latest change to the download page put a link to TWiki.NET version on TOP of the page, which is clearly a violation of the very first line in the guidelines.

-- RafaelAlvarez - 09 Jul 2008

And it even is not 4.2. It is linking to a 4.1.2 distribution on a 4.2 download page.

Peter, what are you doing here? Others - including me - have already tried to fix that but you reverted that all the time. Please remove this TWiki.net link ASAP.

-- MichaelDaum - 10 Jul 2008

As there seems to be a definite need to have some kind of advertising (for some reason or the other), why not rethink what options we have?

-- ArthurClemens - 10 Jul 2008

If there's a need for some kind of advertising, from what I understand, there still needs to be discussion prior to any radical changes. After all, TWiki.org is a community-driven project.

-- KwangErnLiew - 10 Jul 2008

That is what I suggest.

-- ArthurClemens - 10 Jul 2008

Have a loot at http://www.bestofjoomla.com/. Another site that reflects all the diversity of the Joomla ecosystem. What a difference.

-- MichaelDaum - 10 Jul 2008

Why don't we just set up an adserver like openads and display ads on all pages. TWiki.net could get a good share of exposure. The rest of exposure could be assigned by community-votes or payments of community-members.

-- MartinSeibert - 11 Jul 2008

Martin, but who will get the money? twiki.net? You folks should make things transparent. There are ideas on TWikiFoundation, this would be a good way to make things transparent. A public foundation shows what it needs money for, how much it needs, and where the incoming money is coming from. I did not know twiki.net sponsors 1000 dollars per month for the hosting. If a foundation was there, with a public budget and spendings report i would have known. And what is more, i probably would have given money to the foundation at least for the past year, because i learned twiki is a good product that needs support!

-- JoostKattegat - 11 Jul 2008

There is no doubt that the action of adding the banner is a direct violation of the community decision which I took the initiative to to resolve a similar situation where Wikiring had added links without asking.

Two wrongs do not make a right. And it amplifies the situation when this happens as the new TWikiGovernance proposal tries to define the BDFL. If a BFDL role means that community decisions made can be overruled at any time without discussion or warning then it is the end of this project as an open source project. The BDFL role should be used to protect the spirit and the continuity of the project to protect the users and ensure that TWiki is a professionel product users/customers can trust.

Now the situation is that the community desperately needs a better server for twiki.org. Sun has donated some servers that turn out to be not suitable for running a Perl application like TWiki. So TWiki.net has decided to fund a new server in exchange for a banner commercial on the download page.

Problem is - they never asked.

The silly thing is - given the facts about the funding of a server - the community would probably have accepted - because "something for something" is a reasonable deal.

Now the problem is - how can we trust the BDFL? How can we trust TWiki.net? I am not spending sometimes 20 hours of unpaid work per week to be pissed on. I am not spending personal energy on getting a decision like the one above accepted - and then find 6 months later - that TWiki.net pisses on the decision.

-- KennethLavrsen - 11 Jul 2008

If one would donate, would that mean that individual has more rights than others on TWiki.org? And where is the channel for donation? Where is the control on that donation pot? Who controls the donation pot?

What makes TWiki.NET have priority and favour compared to others? Or are we (as a community) needing to accept that TWiki.ORG is under the mercy and directives of TWiki.NET? A commercial entity that has very separate goals and different organisational culture than the Open Source community?

-- KwangErnLiew - 11 Jul 2008

Kenneth: I understand your thoughts and angriness. It is Peter's task to sort this out again.

Joost: I created this section, which answers your questions: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/TWikiFoundation#Funding I am still convinced, that it is a good solution that can work.

-- MartinSeibert - 12 Jul 2008

The more this all pans out, the less I like allowing any comercial attributions on twiki.org. It seem to me to be more advantageous to the community to have twiki.org as the totally independant open source project - in some ways i'm surprised no-one thought that calling a company twiki.net wasn't also inappropriate - as it dilutes the TWiki name considerably.

-- SvenDowideit - 14 Jul 2008

I fully understand that many people feel angry at my action. First I would like to summarize the history that lead to this:

  • Aug 2007: At the Rome summit Rod asked the community if TWIKI.NET can get a download box in the download page in return to supporting the community. Everybody agreed, although Crawford was the only person against it at the summit.
  • Jan 2008: Sven posted non-open sourced installers at TWikiInstaller
  • Jan 2008: Kenneth intervened asking why one external entity should be able to post a distribution, where another should not, and as a result posted RevisitingDecisionNotToAllowLinkingToExternalTWikiDistros
  • Jan 2008: The GuideLinesLinkingThirdPartyDistributions has been accepted within the community at the FreetownReleaseMeeting2008x01x21
  • Feb 2008: Sven posts 6 bullets with non-open sourced WikiRing installers at TWikiRelease04x02x00 (within guidelines), Sven also promises to open source the installers (open action item)
  • Apr 2008: TWIKI.NET posts one bullet with its distribution (within guidelines)
  • Jul 2008: Peter puts TWIKI.NET download box on download page (not within guidelines, the first and only time Peter is not following a community agreement)

So far so good/bad. I would like to say that I am sorry and that I regret my action; overruling the guidelines was not the right thing to do since it undermines trust. In return, I propose to RivisitSponsorshipRecognition to find a way to solve the community needs, my needs as the community lead and those of TWIKI.NET. Also, Tom Barton, Crawford, Michael and I started to communicate on solving commercial aspects of the TWiki project as outlined in the HighLevelTWikiStrategy.

-- PeterThoeny - 14 Jul 2008

Hi Peter,

I am very glad, you said that: "I would like to say that I am sorry and that I regret my action; overruling the guidelines was not the right thing to do since it undermines trust."

That is a big move and it heals the angriness, that I had, if you promise to do better in the future. I honestly do not care about the past at all. I want to have a lively community in the future. That is all that matters.

Sven: Please allow, that I disagree with your approach and your critique on commercial influences in general. I also do not have the slightest problem with Peter founding a company with the name of "his software". I hope, that he will stick to the rules and all we others should also. That is all I believe is necessary for more cool TWiki-development.

-- MartinSeibert - 14 Jul 2008

Martin, just a clarification: TWiki is not Peter's software, as he is not the copyright holder. But Peter is the Trademark holder so I agree that he has the right to put that name to his company. Good or Bad? I cannot say.

The difference? Peter can prohibit the community, companies and consultantes from using the TWiki name beyond a "fair use" (not that it will ever happens, btw), but he cannot prohibit them to use the sources.

-- RafaelAlvarez - 14 Jul 2008

Peter, thanks for the clarifications. Apologies accepted smile

-- RafaelAlvarez - 14 Jul 2008

Martin, as you are quite new within the community you are not affected by the past. So I can understand that you don´t care about it. But please respect that there are community members who actually are affected by the past and don´t want to be treated this way any longer. BTW as you can see in all these post, everyone likes to have a lively community in the future, otherwise noone would care to post here.

Regarding to Peters software, here are numbers who contributed to TWikis core for the last release:

2007-01-17 (TWiki 4.1) - 2008-01-15 (TWiki 4.2) Main/lib

Author Changes Lines of Code
CrawfordCurrie 926 (66.5%) 16802 (59.2%)
SvenDowideit 224 (16.1%) 8793 (31.0%)
Sum 1150 (82.6%) 25595 (90.2%)

-- AndreUlrich - 14 Jul 2008

Try and make a table of hours spent. A number of people spend significant time testing and testing, analysing bugs so they are easy to fix, community household like release process and meetings, keeping twiki.org tidy and free of spam and answering the many many support questions every day. An hour spent is an hour contributed.

I know the point was that the TWiki project belong to the community that created it and that point is understood by all I think. But please try and be a little less lines-of-code focused when you evaluate contribution and think about it more in time spent. It makes people like me feel more valued.

-- KennethLavrsen - 15 Jul 2008

What Kenneth says is incredibly true. Crawford and I have spent much more time on TWiki than those few lines of code suggest, as have numerous others, including Peter and Kenneth.

What Andre says is also very true - all he was trying to give, is a non-disputable example of how TWiki is not Peter's software rather it is a non-trivial community owned work.

As with all management metrics, you can choose to use true, but flawed numbers, or you can dream of getting impossible metrics, thus measuring nothing.

I think this discussion is bringing forth the biggest reason why we are having the TWikiGovernanceAndStrategyTopics disagreement for so many years. There is (as evidenced by Martin's assertion Peter founding a company with the name of "his software") a disconnect between the reality that TWiki is a community lead and sustained Open source software, and the presentation that it is one person's creation. This presentation may be subtle, but as you can see from Kenneth's response - there is an issue.

If you trawl Codev, you will come across many many examples of the issue of a deprecation of credit to contributors over the years - many of which have resulted in changes to attempt to redress it, but to me, I see Martin's statement as showing those to have been less than effective.

One thing that may help you understand my point of view wrt making twiki.org fully non-commercial, is that I am not a business person. I am a software engineer, and I currently work helping others deploy and customize twiki. I am thus almost exclusively interested seeing this open source project continue to be independent of corporate strategies. I did hope that a twiki.net would enable me to spend my time working on the twiki core (as an employee RedHat/Ubuntu style), but what can you do.

-- SvenDowideit - 16 Jul 2008

Guys, look what two words can do: His software. It is so easy to misunderstand what someone said. I read it has the software he created (aka taking over development of predecessor JosWiki). Reactions like this do not happen in a high trust environment, an indication that we have way to go.

-- PeterThoeny - 23 Jul 2008

BasicForm
TopicClassification DefineTerm
TopicSummary Guide Lines for Linking to Third Party Distributions of TWiki
InterestedParties

RelatedTopics

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
PNGpng DownloadTWikiSnap1.png r1 manage 42.0 K 2008-07-09 - 06:34 UnknownUser DownloadTWiki page, 2008-07-09
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r29 < r28 < r27 < r26 < r25 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r29 - 2008-07-23 - PeterThoeny
 
  • Learn about TWiki  
  • Download TWiki
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl Hosted by OICcam.com Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. Ask community in the support forum.
Copyright © 1999-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.