Are we trying to capture "owner" or "approver" or
both?
I am down as owner of the "Collaboration and
Information Resources". I am not sure how that rumour started, as most of that
is owned by Susan. Upon occasion, she has done the courtesy of asking me to
review and approve some content. But to claim that I own that stuff just seems
wrong to me.
Same goes for Articles and
Whitepapers.
I would put both Janet and my names down beside Legal
Resources.
Please note new version of directory catalogue
document
- I have included an XML graphic to indicate potential RSS
feeds
- "Project Discussions" - agreed they will be automatically generated
and will take care of themselves, someone still needs to own the page where
the links are
- I have included Ed Burnett as owner of Corner
Articles
- Denis's Name has been corrected
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly
Bjorn!
Andrew
And apparently a lot more too
:-)
My comments:
- "Change Tracking" should be automatic and thus does not need to be
owned by anyone. The idea is to be able to report to the reader the
difference between the website today and the last time they read the
website (or something like that). RSS is a change tracking
mechanism; there are others.
- "Project Discussions" should be automatically generated from the
Foundation database, thus the newsgroups page should be autogened and not
require ownership. Same for mailing lists, etc.
- Is Mike really in charge of Articles? I thought Ed Burnett was.
- Don't you have Denis' name spelled incorrectly?
Bjorn has already noted
that he is the owner of the Eclipse Councils
pages.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
