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


A quote: Things grow unstructured.

TDF and LibO are two different although related things growing at
great pace since few weeks ago.

However I think that the structure for contribution is lagging behind for both.

I know that new TDF and LibO websites are ongoing. But I don't know
what really has to be done. Neither I know what has NOT to be done.

I just polished the structure of
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website
and realized that there is an "official" major confusion between TDF
and LibO websites development.

In the mail list I see few of you with a clear picture of what has to
be done. But what about casual contributors such as me or Narayan. How
can we know what is a priority and what is not without seeking and
reading dozens of messages.

Most importantly: Many more will come and find themselves in the same situation.

I ask the ones with a rather clear top-down vision to do two things:
1.- Don't over use the mail list. Use the wiki to materialize cooled
down knowledge.
2.- Keep the wiki up to date (and structured).
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website can't be up to date when
the URL is meaning "TDF website" and the first paragraph says "Welcome
to the LibreOffice Webpage development wiki"

First step: leave http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website for
talking about the TDF website and create
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/LibO/... for LibreOffice topics.
LibreOffice website would come in
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/LibO/Website , etc.



On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Marc Paré <marc@marcpare.com> wrote:
Le 2010-12-12 03:47, Stefan Weigel a écrit :
Hi Stefan:



Well:

<quote>
during our yesterday's call, the CMS decision was taken: it will be
Silverstripe as a starter, with plans to migrate to Drupal later on.
</quote>

To me, "plans to migrate to Drupal later on" does not necessarily
mean, that there actually will be a migration to Drupal.

Hmmm, I don't know how more implicit this would be.


And, the SCM minutes clearly read:

<quote>
suggestion is that the website team should do some more planning,
what we need regarding website, additional services, and see how
this can be achieved with drupal. We see the need of a more
sophisticated CMS in the future.
</quote>

Yes, this, when taken in context, was a comment on the Drupal team not being
as organised in the beginning. Most of the Drupal people were busy with
their employment commitments and had somehow been caught short in presenting
a sample CMS for the SC. However, the documentation was well presented. You
would have to read the whole thread to get a feel for it.


To me, this means, that there has to be further evaluation and an
that migrating to drupal depends on a future decision by the SC.

Pse, don´t get me wrong: I am *not* against Drupal. But we should
recognize, what has been decided yet and what not.

Stefan


Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***




-- 
"Make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE
capabilities."
    Bill Gates, 1998.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


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.