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

Le 2010-11-03 11:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :

Not very intuitive, but well.
Things noticed at first look, even before logging in:
The site uses the ugly node/<number>  scheme

When logging in:
The editor doesn't provide way to insert internal URLs,
The available content types seems strange - you can create an
Extension via the site? Doubt so...
and in fact it offers just the regular blog-entry style input.
no workflow, etc.

Bottom line: I's not clear to me whats going on with this proof of
concept and the site Erich hosts - Why not combie the two and work on
a site that will actually work?
If the site at wheatland is only to show a possible structure
(navigation, what content to put under what section) of the site, then
it doesn't need to be drupal. The presentation-document did present it
just fine. After all the best concept won't work out if the people
aren't able to fill it with content, esp. when talking about video
tutorials and similar "fancy" stuff. Those need to be done really,
really well, otherwise you can easily be flagged as unprofessional.

If the site is about to show off drupal's features, then IMHO there is
no point in working on two seperate installations, that will then have
different editors, different feel for the user.

To me it now looks like a split effort

So please work together on *one* drupal demo/prototype, please don't
create drupal instances here and there that all lack basic
functionality, differ in basic concepts.


Wow, Christian, thank you for the constructive criticism. It is nice to see that we can all work in a collegial atmosphere.

We were given from 3-6 months to work on a site and so far we have constructed in less that 3-4 days:

* a very rough in Drupal site at
* another rough in site on Erich's site
* a more involved site outgrown from discussions with various groups on mailists ( * a Drupal Development Wiki page ( * created a Website Achritectrue and Structure page ( * a more investigative approach with the document team and offers to conference with team members and take stock of their "best wishes" for a Drupal support site (documentation mailist) * there is now a Drupal Strategy Wiki page identifying time lines; areas of importance thus far for site development and "contentious decisions) ( * Drupal Proof of Concept Wiki page ( * a Wiki page where busy Drupal Team Members are organising their roles within the Drupal development ( * a Drupal Wiki page for module assessment/testing and establishing member roles ( * we are presently investigating better communications method to the Drupal Team (Florian has been made aware of this and we may ask him for a mailist/forum/nntp etc later after our discussion) -- (

And this is only the start. We presently have a membership of 13 people on the Drupal Website Team (everyone if free to join and participate); we also have an offer from a Drupal Website dev. company and we are looking at their offer or paticipation and the generous conditions of only having some kind of recognition of their help on the LibO site -- Florian may have to take this to the SC for a closer look)

I am quite proud of the amount of cooperation that I have seen in many groups and find that this group, again, exemplifies very well what should be a cooperative and collaborative group.

Yes, there will be hiccups along the way but we will get it right for all stakeholders and keep listening to other suggestions in order to deliver a well-thought-out and productive home for "The Document Foundation" and "LibreOffice".

Many thanks for your words of wisdom and we will certainly try our best to correct any oversights that you may have pointed out.


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.