I just joined all three Habari Group/lists a few minutes ago, and I am here to help you guys out in any way I can. I just got my Habari up and running lastnight. I installed it on a sub domain name..
http://www.habari.spencerp.net/

I also just made my first backend "adjustments" for it. Well, it's nothing big, but for me it was! I just edited the admin.css min-width:1000px; to min-width:775px; so it's 800x600 res friendly. Yeah, there is still those that use the 800x600res lol.. =P

Anyway, I know I haven't been the "best person" to talk with and associate with on the WordPress Community, sigh. I guess that partly had to do with the fact of how it's all run over there to begin with.. ;)

You know, thee old "it's my way or the highway" type of attitude. Also, thee old "who gives a crap" type attitude. However, I don't intend to be this way with the Habari Community..

Like Craig Hartel had said in his one post..
http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev/browse_thread/thread/e454de...

I too, felt very much pushed aside by WordPress as it evolved. I too, did a lot of support, as well as been a part of the Install4Free service. I too, basically got kicked to the curb..

If you ever need me for anything special, please let me know, okay? I'll try to help, and give towards the Habari project as best as I can. Thank you for your time..

--
spencerp
http://spencerp.net

Hey Spencerp!

Great to see you here. (David, writer of BloggingPro). You have always
been super helpful in the WP support forums. Glad to see you hanging
around here.

[David wrote>
Hey Spencerp!

Great to see you here. (David, writer of BloggingPro). You have always been super helpful in the WP support forums. Glad to see you hanging around here.~~]

Thanks for the kind words David, well, the *only* kind words so far lol.. Hahaha.. =P  I'm not sure, I get the feeling that no one wants me here either.. so.. I might just stick with WP..

I already took down the habari on the sub domain, even though the sub domain name is still up. I *might* mess with this more on the localhost.. I don't know any more.. sigh.. I'm tired, gnight people.. and good luck with it all..

--
spencerp
http://spencerp.net

Please don't take our silence as disregard, take it as there are 100's
of emails flying from here a day, and we can't always answer them all
right away.

Everyone is welcome in Habari land.

Actually, this is exactly why I prefer forums over mailinglists. ...
Why don't we set up one of those instead? I'll be happy to host it, and
what not ... all my DH space is going to waste anyway ;)

-thomas

On 1/16/07, Mertz <unsorta...@gmail.com> wrote:

I recall there being a thread about what people wanted out of a Habari
project site, so let's add that to our requirements.

Technology choice may end up being an issue, so what forum software
would everyone prefer that the project use?  phpBB (please no), punBB,
bbPress, Vanilla...?

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/

punBB ... simple, easy and by far the most secure and stable forum I've
experienced to date. And for the site itself ... habari, no doubt ;)
... if it's stable enough ...

The Google Groups interface provides a forum-like view of the mailing
list.  For those that prefer a forum to a list, consider using it:
   http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev/topics
No, it's not perfect, but I feel it's an adequate compromise.

We don't yet have a fully functional product.  Given the choice between
fiddling with forum software configurations and fiddling with our
embryonic source code, I'd prefer we focus on the latter.

Thanks very much for your offer to host.  Your enthusiasm and support
does not go unnoticed; and we may yet change our minds.  But for now, we
(that is, the current project team) are happy enough with Google services.

Aye.  No slight is intended by not replying.  All voices are welcome to
express themselves here, provided they're trying to constructively
support the project.

--
GPG 9CFA4B35 | ski...@skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

On Jan 16, 2007, at 07:22, Mertz wrote:

While we appreciate the offer, my personal opinion here is that we  
will probably decline the offer, for a number of reasons.

1) If we had a web-based forum, rather than email, I would never ever  
check it, and would be even further behind than I am now.
2) Decent mail clients do threading, and so having the discussion web-
based offers no real advantages. Also, you can already use the Google  
Groups interface, if you so desire, and then it is already web based  
if you need it to be.
3) We would prefer not to have the bits and pieces of our  
infrastructure scattered on 20 different hosting services. This is  
why we put up with some of the limitations of Google Code.
4) We are in many respects modeling our community and development  
after the Apache Software Foundation manner of operation, and there  
everything is email-based. Although we haven't formally spoken to  
anybody at Apache about this, it's no secret that we'd like to be  
part of the ASF some day, and we intend to do things from the start  
such that that transition will be as painless as possible if/when it  
happens.

#1, #2 and #3 are my personal opinion, and can be discarded at will.  
#4 is the real organizational reason for this, and would require some  
pretty strenuous arm-twisting for me not to veto it.

--
Rich Bowen
rbo...@rcbowen.com

On 1/16/07, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

That's... interesting.  It certainly seemed like a secret, right up
until you mentioned it.  I don't think any of the online docs mention
it.

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/

On Jan 16, 2007, at 09:33, Doug Stewart wrote:

Nor will they. It would be presumptuous to claim that we're going to  
be an Apache project some day, when no such thing is guaranteed.

--
If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
   To the hills of the Chankly Bore!

On 1/16/07, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

Okay, then when/how/where would someone off the street learn of this
non-secret?  There's Apache-style lovin' all over the place, but
nowhere does it say that we're aiming for that.

I think it puts a different spin on the project if that's the end
goal.  Me, personally, I'd hate it if the project was subsumed by the
ASF.  I think it's limiting.  I think Habari ought to aim to be the
Apache of blogging, not the blog of Apache, if you get my drift.

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/

http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev/browse_frm/thread/f681df341...

The four of us that started Habari all agreed that graduation to a
full-fledged ASF project would be a groovy goal.  It's something towards
which we'd like to work; but it's not a requirement.  If we apply and
get rejected from the Incubator, or if we flunk out of the Incubator,
then Habari will keep going, possibly with revised goals and objectives.

Being an ASF project immediately frees us, the lowly developers, from
much of the consternation of legal wranglings, handling charitable
donations, and a lot of other administrative overhead.

As a PHP application, there will always be plenty of people who hate
Habari and will never install it.  We can be the Apache of PHP-based
blog applications, though.  :)

I don't see being an ASF project as contradictory with being the Apache
of PHP blogging.  I don't see having a successful, established sponsor
as a bad thing at all.

--
GPG 9CFA4B35 | ski...@skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

It's been discussed on IRC and on the mailing lists. You just found  
out about it. But it's a wish of certain ones of the developers, and  
not an official goal.

That's not the end goal. It's one of many aspirations. I'd be curious  
to hear how you feel that it's limiting. That's an important  
conversation to have. But it's a fairly long way out, and I imagine  
that by the time we reach that point, the committer pool will be  
significantly larger, so there will be room for many opinions. There  
are many opinions and preconceptions about what the ASF is, and how  
it affects the projects that are part of it. I tend to think that  
many of these are misconceptions, but, since I've been part of the  
ASF for about 8 years, I'm pretty much guaranteed to be biased on  
that point. I'd love to hear your take on things.

--
If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
   To the hills of the Chankly Bore!

On 1/16/07, Scott Merrill <ski...@skippy.net> wrote:

As long as there's a vote beforehand, I'm fine with that.

I know it's early in the project lifecycle and early development often
takes small tyrranies to actually push through, but the exact meaning
of "meritocracy" needs expanding and expounding upon.  What plays into
"merit"?  Time spent in forums/mailing lists?  Lines of code?  Status
as founders?

I know there's a lot of frustration with WP (well, the Automattic
portion, at least) in these parts, but at least there's a definite
tiered structure that's immediately apparent.  Both models have their
downsides, just like being a Baptist has its comparative downsides to
my previous life as a Presbyterian.  *grin*  It's all a denominational
thing...

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/

On 1/16/07, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

IRC conversations ought to be weighted significantly lower than email,
IMNSHO.  Take a RedHat Bugzilla approach - If It's Not In Bugzilla
(Google Code/Groups), It Doesn't Exist.

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/

Yes, I imagine that a formal vote before applying for entry into the
Incubator would occur.

Merit is somewhat protean, certainly.  It will change over time.  One
obvious metric is number and quality of submitted patches.  Please
remember that one may patch documentation as well as source code.  For
the short term, this is likely to be the dominant metric, since it
produces the most useful results for this stage of the project.

Participation in mailing list discussions, submission of new ideas and
long-term ownership of those ideas, and end-user assistance will all be
considered contributions to the project.  It will take more than _just_
participating on a mailing list, though, to gain entry into the project.
 There must be some meaningful benefit to Habari as a result of that
participation.  An example, off the top of my head, might be consistent
success getting new users over the humps in installing Habari, and
filtering common problems back to both the documentation team and the
coders for improvements to the installer itself.

Sure.  We hope that our model has less downsides.  :)

--
GPG 9CFA4B35 | ski...@skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:00, Doug Stewart wrote:

Yes, that is the official position. If it's not either in the bug  
tracker or in the mailing list archive, it never happened. Thus, IRC  
discussion, and over-dinner discussion, about "wouldn't it be cool to  
be an ASF project" didn't officially happen, in as far as it being an  
official goal. It's just something that we, the founding fathers,  
think would be neat. Which is why it's not documented anywhere.

--
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings

I wrote a tiny bit about it here: http://wooga.drbacchus.com/?p=1425

But what it comes down to is that the committers vote on who gets to  
be a committer. Thus, the community grows by selecting other people  
viewed to be of like mind, who we deem to have contributed a  
sufficient amount of progress in the right direction. It's very  
organic, and mogrifies over time as the community mogrifies. This  
*can* tend to end up being a little disconcerting to the founders, if  
they are at all control freaks, since, over time, their power  
dwindles. However, that is specifically why it's a good thing, too.

--
"He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself  
in the purple of Emperors."
-- Rudyard Kipling

On 1/16/07, Doug Stewart <zamo...@gmail.com> wrote:

We've suggested that five non-trivial source code patches might
qualify a person for nomination as a committer.  That's just in regard
to source code, since it's probably the easiest to quantify.  We've
already considered other people for inclusion based on non-code
contributions.

I'm newer to the concept of how the Apache Foundation handles these
things than Rich, but my impression is that anyone can be proffered as
a new committer, but the merit of accepting them has to be obvious
enough to the group that they would vote to include them.  I mean, you
could suggest that your luddite neighbor be included, but they'd never
get past the vote.

I expect that the merit of people's contributions will be apparent in
how they contribute and how they foster their own ideas.  For example,
Khaled has not only provided mock-ups of the UI, but has submitted
many, many revisions based on feedback from the community.  He has
truly fostered his contribution.

Keeping on top of documentation, handling support requests deftly (not
just responding to them, but passing on the information that something
is wrong to the other devs so that it can be fixed), and even managing
the marketing message of the product could all be considered valid
reasons for inclusion.

Owen

On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:18, Owen Winkler wrote:

Please note that the vote is not a rubber-stamp of 5 committed  
patches. Community > Code, and poisonous people will hopefully not be  
able to insinuate themselves into the community by virtue of 5  
patches. So there's also a time element that needs to be considered.  
Someone who submits 5 patches in 12 minutes will probably have to  
hang around a little longer than that to be considered for commit  
access.

--
If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
   To the hills of the Chankly Bore!

On 1/16/07, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

I think this is one of the frustrations that the Nuclearmoose's and
spencerp's of the world had with the WordPress Way - their
contributions, while substantial, were non-code and therefore left by
the wayside.

So how do we quantize these sorts of things?  Is it a zeitgeist sort
of issue?  Or is there something more definable?

And, when it comes time to vote on early issues (such as domain,
direction for logo, etc.), are the committers the only ones with
votes?  I've seen a few mails talking about potential mechanisms for
the voting itself, but no mention of WHO exactly will vote on these
issues other than Owen, Khalid, Chris, Rich, Scott, etc.

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/

Yes.  I think it's safe to say that such dedication and energy will be
recognized by the Habari project team.  The _team_ nominates new
members, and then votes on them.  In the absence of a veto, simple
consensus is sufficient to agree to invite someone else into the team.
And it should be noted that it _is_ an invitation: no one is required to
participate in the project team if they don't want to do so.

Since _the team_ nominates and votes, what constitutes sufficient
positive contribution will vary wildly over time as the composition of
the team changes.

We'll have to play it by ear, at least at first.  Submitting
documentation is one way to get recognized.  Providing positive,
rational support for arguments made on the mailing list is another way.

To draw an example, it's not sufficient just to say "We need X number of
buttons on this screen" and then keep repeating yourself.  One should
exercise some real effort to provide examples in other applications, and
possibly even provide references to usability studies done elsewhere.
You don't need to contribute a single line of code to get us to change
our minds about something by giving us factual information.  That kind
of discipline will very definitely be recognized as something we want to
preserve.

I think, unfortunately, that we're still too new a project to be able to
quantify much of anything.  Personally, I'm a little leery of
quantifying things, because our needs might change over time and such
quantifications might preclude someone from joining based on our new needs.

_Anyone_ on the mailing lists may submit a vote.  I hope that we're all
honest and mature enough to actually pay attention to everyone's
opinions, even if we might disagree personally.  However, only the
project team gets a binding vote.  The project team currently are those
names listed on the front page of our Google Code project.

The list below correlates Google Code names with IRC nicks for those who
use different ones:
chrisdmitri (chrisjdavis)
rbowen2000 (DrBacchus)
smerrill (skippy)
epithet (ringmaster)
randy.walker
jaypipes
nemo8686 (Caius)
brokenkode (Khaled)
moeffju
lairmail (tinster)

That list has been increased recently; and we certainly hope to see it
continue to expand.

--
GPG 9CFA4B35 | ski...@skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

I was made a committer on the Apache Web Server project without ever  
committing a line of code. I have remained a committer there, and I  
still have no code in the project. I write docs.

This experience will certainly shape the way that I vote.

It is indeed hard to quantify, since it's at least as much about how  
well people fit into the community as it is about the code/docs/user  
assistance that they contribute.

I also anticipate that as the project matures, the time required to  
become a committer will grow significantly. We've already added come  
committers, and the project is still in its infancy.

Action item: Publish a list of committers somewhere.

There is a certain value in having strong leadership at this early  
stage in the project, to set the direction that we'll end up going.  
Having too many voices at this early stage is likely to make us lose  
focus. I already think that we're wasting far too many cycles on  
issues like a logo, which I consider to be peripheral, at best, and  
downright distracting at worst. Of course, the moment we made the  
developers mailing list open, that was inevitable, so it's not like  
it was a surprise. And, of course, some people actually care about  
stuff like that.

When a vote is called for on any given issue, the committers have a  
vote. Everyone else is welcome to express their opinion, and could be  
viewed as lobbyists.

Votes will be called in two situations.

One, the addition of new committers. These votes happen on the habari-
private mailing list and are not public.

Two, contentious technical issues. These MUST be public. Most commits  
don't require a vote. At least for now.

We are currently in what's called Commit Then Review (CTR), which  
means that commits can be challenged after they are put in, if  
someone thinks it's a bad idea.

Once we have a stable branch (ie, release candidates) then we'll do  
RTC on that branch, while continuing CTR on TRUNK. That way, releases  
are relatively stable, and don't change every 12 minutes, unless the  
changes are deemed to be critical for that release.

--
"Books to the ceiling, Books to the sky, My pile of books is a mile  
high.
How I love them! How I need them! I'll have a long beard by the time  
I read them." -- Arnold Lobel

In all these situations, please do not consider me to be a nudge, a
downer, or anything of the sort.  I'm trying to add constructive
criticism and, above all, trying to clarify things inasmuch as is
possible.  I have consistently found, whether it be in family
relationships, politics, open source development, corporate IT or
organized religion, the more a unit striving towards a single goal can
lay out expectations and procedures, the better off everyone ends up.
If there's a well-defined route into gaining commit access, it should
be documented somewhere so that project newbies can set that goal for
themselves.  If it's more nebulous, as it appears at this point is the
case for Habari, it STILL should be documented somewhere AS nebulous
so that people aren't left in the dark.

I think it's probably food for a FAQ on habariproject.org (or whatever
the URL ends up being) and is likely not a candidate for GC wiki
inclusion, at least IMHO.

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/