Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Oct 19, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Benjamin, *,
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Benjamin Horst <> wrote:

What pages will the site include at its launch? Only those currently on the TDF website?

How do you define "at its launch". So yes, when the "sitch is turned
over" going from the current website to the cms driven website, the
pages that are currently on the TDF website are a must-have.

Yes, exactly. The day it first becomes publicly visible is its launch.

I'd not go into changing visual design yet.

Depending on the progress of the german-lang testsite, a couple of
pages from that area could be part of the initial launch as well.

Can you list them here please? I want to get a feel for the architecture implications.

But with initial launch I really mean the day when the switch is made.
After that, when groups can be established, those groups would add
their own content.

This is also what I expected.

If that is our plan, then the CMS choice is much simpler.

I've written a list of pages as I think they should be organized in the wiki,

Unfortunately you put it into a document that needs to be downloaded
to be viewed, and thus cannot easily be modified/adapted.

On the contrary, they are listed right on the wiki page. They are replicated in the ODG file 
(slightly modified) but you don't need to download it to see them. (As a side note, you can easily 
modify and re-upload the file into the wiki, which will track versions as they are uploaded.)

I think the current 8 main-pages as we have now are a good start for
the initial launch, after all you can only create the pages when you
got the content for it.
(and of course it's not written in stone, you're always free to change
the site structure afterwards)

Yes, but organizational inertia makes this much more difficult in practice.

Christian: What is your expectation for site IA? Can you list the site sections and pages you 
envision, especially if they are very different from what I have put onto the wiki?

Well, as you especially mentioned future needs, then I'd say that the
libreoffice part will be much shorter no the main TDF page, after all
it will someday have it's own page at (that currently
just links to the foundation page)

But really I'd not go into details of the structure right now, i think
it's too early.

I think we need to plan the structure as much as possible before implementing. This will prevent us 
from making mistakes and having to backtrack / redo our work later.

Finally, based on what I have observed from Mozilla's organization, shouldn't we consider two 
separate websites at different domains (one for TDF, and one for LibO)?

Ah, you got the same opinion on that one :-) - see above.

As to your layout proposals: I'd be happy to leave that decision to
marketing/branding - putting a corresponding frontpage and css
together is way easier than to actually agree upon a design :->

I think this would be much easier for users to understand, as they'd want to spend their time on 
LibO site. Meanwhile, community participants would mostly use the TDF site. Perhaps we could
make one of these sites use SilverStripe and one use Drupal, as a compromise...

Not sure whether that is a good idea, but Steering Committee has final
word anyway.

Drupal allows power and flexibility; SilverStripe allows editor simplicity. The site that would 
require heavy community features and data driven pages would be Drupal. The site that is more 
"brochure-ware" would be SilverStripe. Seems like a fair way to resolve the current impasse, and 
road-test both CMS platforms in realworld conditions for our project.


Benjamin Horst
646-464-2314 (Eastern)

E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.