Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS

Le 2010-10-20 07:26, Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
> Marc Paré wrote:
> > I have re-read all of the posts and thus far: ...
> > Have I missed any? Please add points to this list that have come to a
> > resolution of debate among the contributors of this thread.
>
> I have re-read all of them too, not only your summary, and I still see
> we have strategic choices to make.
>
> 1) We shouldn't be discussing on a website, but on something more
> remarkable. Not in terms of features (I agree in keeping out mailing
> lists and stuff that is not web-related), but as seeing this as a huge
> opportunity for creating a nice, remarkable, network of websites. And,
> if the Document Fondation has a future, it will need this: it already
> does, just open http://extensions.libreoffice.org
>
> A proper discussion would not fit the deadlines and tools the Document
> Foundation has now: if a decision has to be taken now, it will miss the
> bigger scope. If the Document Foundation must choose a tool that will be
> flexible enough to rebuild all the current OpenOffice.org infrastructure
> on it (e.g.: OOo site; Extensions; TCM; QATrack), then Drupal is that
> tool; I can't imagine how to rebuild the Extensions site and all
> processing in Silverstripe, for one. So the whole idea of "choosing a
> tool just for the site" is short-sighted; build it on any technology,
> but it will come the time when a really powerful tool has to be chosen
> to give the community a unified user experience across all different
> sites, and Drupal can hardly have rivals here.
>
> 2) Moving to a database-based CMS can imply loss of traceability of
> changes. The current CVS infrastructure, as bad as it can be, allows to
> see a full log of changes very easily. Drupal has a killer feature here:
> site settings can be exported to PHP code, shared among a distributed
> development team through any revision control system (SVN, git,
> whatever) and applied in a safe way to the running site. It is very
> important that we are able to answer the question "Who enabled
> this permission, when and why?" easily and reliably, and the Drupal
> Features module does this: it automatically monitors site settings and
> exports them, so answering this question is just a matter of reading the
> changelog. I didn't see anything like this in Silverstripe; is it there?
>
> 3) How do you plan to implement translations? (from a visitor's point
> of view, not technically). I mean, the current http://www.openoffice.org
> site is in English only; you need to go to http://de.openoffice.org to
> see content in German, but that one is a totally different site. On the
> other hand, the Silverstripe demo (and of course Drupal too) seems to
> support translation of the single pages: but is that what you want? From
> what I could see (pumbaa has been down for me for the last two hours)
> you also foresee N-L subsites. A choice must be made between:
> - Having translatable pages
> - Having localized websites, with independent structure but same login
> - Having both (not acceptable from my point of view, too confusing)
>
> These kinds of decisions are much more important than a demo in my
> opinion: then, I understand that on this and other important matters the
> Steering Committee is in a hurry and it needs things done quickly rather
> than properly. I just fear, and my arguments are above, that choosing
> the "nice out of the box" Silverstripe will hinder further
> development... Unless there is the attitude to rediscuss this in a few
> months, like the "Codebase migration from CVS" discussion, that was
> resolved by temporarily migrating to SVN as a quick decision with the
> promise (then fulfilled) to migrate to a distributed SCM after one year.
>
> Best regards,
>    Andrea Pescetti.

Hi Andrea:

Thank you for your comments. Before going any further, I do not have 
anything to do with the SC and am just trying to organise the proposal 
in such a way as to make it clear to the SC that we have researched 
appropriately the choices of CMS' for the LibO site.

Yes, you have strong arguments for taking more time to consider the use 
of appropriate CMS. However, it sounds like the SC would like to have 
the decision made by Friday and I expect that the SC has had some "ears" 
listening on our conversations on this thread. I am doubtful that the SC 
will allow any more time than the end of this week as time is pressing 
for a definitive decision on using the "right" CMS.

So, it is obvious, that the membership speaking their mind on this 
thread have expertise in this are., There are 4-5 individuals that 
obviously have a more (what I could call) extraordinary expertise in 
this area, for which we should consider ourselves thankful for. I 
believe that we could make a rational choice by the end of Friday by 
concentrating our efforts just for the next 2 days.

We have narrowed it down to 2 CMS' of which Silverstrip and Drupal. 
There have been made some arguments on both sides as to their virtues 
(usefulness). You have added some more virtues for the use of Drupal ... 
do these now compare to Silverstripe. If not, these arguments should be 
then added to the list that I had started. Let's keep a record of agreed 
virtues and shortfall for a better decision making process.

And let's just assume that we only have till Friday (André, Florian or 
someone from the SC should step in and confirm this if possible).

Are there any counter arguments form Andrea's comments of Drupal's use 
for site building. Please use concrete replies so that we can work 
towards the deadline.

BTW ... I agree with Andrea, that these decisions are larger than the 
demo sites. I tend to think that a review process for ALL aspects of the 
TDF should take place sometime in the near future to re-assess decisions 
made at the initial organising of the project.

Marc


--
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted