[Tinyos-alliance] Re: [Tinyos-devel] TinyOS Website

[Kristin Wright]

I didn't mean to infer that tinyos structure is analogous to ietf
structure. I only meant that the working group pages were modeled
after the ietf working group pages. I think we can safely assume some
analogies between the working group pages.

-kw


On 3/12/06, Joe Polastre <joe at polastre.com> wrote:
> ps: Just my own opinion (and since I'm not part of the alliance, it
> probably isn't worth too much), but I don't believe TinyOS is at all
> like the IETF.  That seems like a very odd model to follow, and has
> very few ties to the way TinyOS has operated.  If anything, TinyOS is
> closer to Mozilla or Apache.
>
> IETF defines globally acceptable standards without specifying a
> particular underlying implementation.  While it is noble to think that
> TinyOS *could* evolve into this model, we're really creating code and
> products like Mozilla and Apache rather than standards.
>
> -Joe
>
> On 3/12/06, Joe Polastre <joe at polastre.com> wrote:
> > As a logistical item, shouldn't the TinyOS website move to a non-UCB
> > server where we can create accounts for folks with access control?
> > This would be in line with what Apache does (and why I can be reached
> > at jpolast at apache.org for life).
> >
> > Having users login and all work together seems much more useful that
> > pages floating around all creation.  I'd argue Apache has done a
> > better job than IETF in terms of managing and consolidating all of the
> > different activities within the organization.
> >
> > And, just think about it, one day we could have our own CVS/SVN that
> > isn't delayed by a day and doesn't go down due to other projects :)
> >
> > -Joe
> >
> > On 3/12/06, Kristin Wright <kwright at archedrock.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, there does need to be more upkeep. I update the working groups
> > > minutes monthly (I'm due for an update -- I know) and I check the
> > > tinyos.net stories at most 2X per week.
> > >
> > > It would be bested if each  group can maintain their own group
> > > website. My thought was to have a link to a private page that the
> > > group chair can update. This standard page would remain standard but
> > > link to another page. This was the model of the original ietf working
> > > group page Phil L. sent to use as a model. Some groups did do this.
> > >
> > > I agree that the scoop software should be replaced with better
> > > community-site software. Maybe someone has studied these and can make
> > > a recommendation.
> > >
> > > -kw
> > >
> > > On 3/12/06, Joe Polastre <joe at polastre.com> wrote:
> > > > (cc: TinyOS-alliance as I'm not sure where this message should go)
> > > >
> > > > Is anyone in charge of the TinyOS website now that Kristin has moved
> > > > on to Arched Rock.  The TinyOS release descriptions are stuck back at
> > > > TinyOS 1.11, and there's a couple of scoop stories (including mine)
> > > > sitting in the pending section.  The working group pages are fairly
> > > > out of date (notes way out of date, teps not updated) with respect to
> > > > the progress that each working group has made (it seems like each
> > > > group should maintain its own website, right?)
> > > >
> > > > In general, there's the potential for the website to be really useful,
> > > > but there is no structure in place for community members to maintain
> > > > its value.
> > > >
> > > > Also, btw, I think it is time for scoop to go.  It hasn't really
> > > > worked for us at all.
> > > >
> > > > -Joe
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Tinyos-devel mailing list
> > > > Tinyos-devel at Millennium.Berkeley.EDU
> > > > https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>