[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] website maintainers needed



"Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)" wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:22:36 +0100 Andrew Williams <andy@handyande.co.uk>
> babbled:
> 
> > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:48:51 -0500 brian.mattern@gmail.com babbled:
> > >
> > >> I know Ben (the peudo-official web maintainer) has been super busy with
> > >> work and Opensolaris, and has a personal distaste for CMSs (such as the
> > >> one e.org currently uses, XSM). I believe the whole point of originally
> > >> moving to a CMS was to allow a much larger group of people to contribute
> > >> to the site's content, but that hasn't happened yet.
> > >>
> > >
> > > indeed. i am wondering if it ever will. maybe the experiment failed?
> > >
> > >
> > Whether this particular implementation of the experiment failed or not I
> > think it is unwise to be going back to web-in-cvs as it was far harder
> > to use!
> 
> well i'd agree that web in cvs likely is a bad idea again (though benr thinks
> it was great) :)
> 
> > >> Finally, I think we need some sort of intro doc on how to use XSM, and
> > >> a small guideline doc on what goes where on the website.
> > >>
> > >
> > > sure - either that or not use xsm? xsm has been good - it has solved
> > > problems. it will run much better locally on the same box, but will it
> > > scale nicely to auto-listing generated tarball snapshots from a directory
> > > for us? we will need to pre-generate pages from templates in scripts, or do
> > > them dynamically with php etc. (much like enlightenment.freedesktop.org
> > > does - its very simple php to collate a set of generated tarballs)
> > >
> > XSM supports embedded PHP if you wish. It is switched off by default as
> > it can represent a huge security hole. This would allow scripts to run
> > in a properly managed hig-load ready web site.
> 
> sure - i would only use php for things like auto-generating tables and entries
> on a page from things like disk contents (put tarballs in a dir - the download
> page links etc. are generated from that)
> 
> > >> I know there's a web list, but I first wanted to discuss this here,
> > >> since it involves possibly moving servers.
> > >>
> > >> Let me know what ya'll think.
> > >>
> > >
> > > and finally i'm getting back to it... hooray! :) some of this will be solved
> > > soon - the question is how to move forward from there? how do we make it
> > > easier for people to provide news and articles? xsm has not proven
> > > effective so far in making that happen. what can we do?
> > >
> > Is this XSM that has proved ineffective or the CMS genre? (open question
> > :) )
> 
> i really don't know. i am hoping for input. is it because xsm has not been open
> enough? (don't think so) - is it's ui too hard to use? is it too much - where
> all we need is a "add news articles and pages" (wiki-style)? is it just that
> xsm was hard to use because of the slow rsync to sf.net? i am making no claims
> one way or another EXCEPT that we have not built a willing army of contributors
> to the website :)
> 

Well, I'm not a big fan of 'do it a different way' unless there are a
lot of reasons to change.  I used to make some updates on the web page. 
When it moved to XSM I need to get a different account... and learn some
XSM... etc.  I don't presently have an account, so you can see where I
got stuck. :)

Andrew Williams wrote:
> 
> 
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:48:51 -0500 brian.mattern@gmail.com babbled:
> >
> >> I know Ben (the peudo-official web maintainer) has been super busy with
> >> work and Opensolaris, and has a personal distaste for CMSs (such as the
> >> one e.org currently uses, XSM). I believe the whole point of originally
> >> moving to a CMS was to allow a much larger group of people to contribute
> >> to the site's content, but that hasn't happened yet.
> >>
> >
> > indeed. i am wondering if it ever will. maybe the experiment failed?
> >
> >
> Whether this particular implementation of the experiment failed or not I
> think it is unwise to be going back to web-in-cvs as it was far harder
> to use!

Well.... I'd suggest you are biased towards XSM. ;)  If benr finds XSM
more ...(insert whatever keeps him away from e.org presently) and I
haven't been using it either, there are two votes for the overall system
is in some ways harder to use now.

Maybe another way to look at it, is that developers who update the web
sites are already using cvs/svn day to day, so that isn't really harder
for them.  If you're more of a CMS person, you are probably more
comfortable using that infrastructure.

-- 
Kevin