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

Hi all:

Le 2010-12-15 18:01, David Nelson a écrit :
Hi, :-)

There is also the question of who would administer a Drupal site. I'm
not currently aware of any candidates with the right profile, unless
Christian was willing to do it.

Administering one of TDF's Web resources requires a lot of technical
knowledge and experience. It's not the same as simply setting-up a
site, theming it, installing a choice of modules and away we go.

The code base behind the website is managed via a TDF-managed git
repository. You can't just tweak and edit files on the server. The
admin has to have the knowledge to be able to configure site modules
in a way that properly interacts and works with the server and other
TDF resources possibly affected. Christian will be able to tell you a
lot more about those technical aspects.

The admin has to be someone known and trusted by TDF and Ooodevs De,
because he/she will have access to important project resources. Even
if one found someone from outside with the necessary knowledge and
experience of Drupal *and* of system admin, that person would still
have to go through at least the "qualification" period (currently
stated as 3 months in the soon-to-be-applicable community bylaws [1])
before being a possible candidate.

From the past discussions of Drupal, I'm not aware of any candidates
for the job - unless Christian himself were to take on the task. By
candidate, I mean someone with the necessary technical qualifications
*plus* the motivation, desire and long-term commitment to steering and
handling the changeover, and to dealing with the site administration
on an on-going basis.

I believe that Michael has proven his abilities at creating as well as showing excellent skills at managing what is shaping up to be both a great community and product site. I don't see why he would also not be considered along with Christian as candidate to admin the site. We should never rely on just one person to admin/manage a site as it leads to problems with replacing that one person should they no longer be able to fulfil their responsibility.

I also believe that Michael will have at this point the required 3 months period to fulfil the bylaws as a possible candidate. I am sure this is quite evident to all by the amount of support and participation he has brought to the project.

Clearly, Michael has shown and proven his motivation for the project as well as determination at details with regards to openness in his approach to constructing a TDF/LibreOffice solution (as demonstrated by the Drupal wiki pages:

In addition, before being adopted as LibO's new CMS, a
fully-operational, full-featured demo has to be offered for *thorough
prior evaluation*. It's not enough to be evangelizing Drupal and
saying it *can* do this and it *can* do that. It has to be proven and
concretely demonstrated that it's a superior choice and that TDF/LibO
really *needs* it. True meritocracy is supposed to be the driving
force behind this project.

Quite right. The Drupal TDF/LO site is being constructed and people are participating in its construction. Roles/tasks are being requested and placed on the wiki page ( as well as We have also had some offers of help from one Drupal website design firm. We are also fortunate with having as TDF/LO member and Drupal members, Andrea Pascetti, who is also quite active in the European Drupal scene as well as Michael Wheatland who is our lead Drupal site builder. As well, let's keep in mind that Drupal in the largest CMS in the world, and, the likelihood of finding members well-versed in its operation on our membership list would be quite high. Invitations to local language groups has/are been made and accommodation for language barrier will be made. The Drupal dev team should make use of all talents of our membership regardless of language barriers.

Content on the Drupal site has not been provided as we have all been busy readying different aspects of the LO project. What content on the site was only provided as examples. But yes, as you say, a "fully-operational site" would be necessary to evaluate. This would then require content on the site, which will therefore have to occur in order to better exemplify it capabilities.

No official decision has yet been taken by the SC/BoD (i.e. via a vote
that complies with the community bylaws), so Drupal is presently a
possible choice for consideration, but not more. You only have to read
the SC meeting minutes [2] to be clear about that:

"vote if to start with Silverstripe or Drupal
result: 6 for Silverstripe vs. 2 for Drupal ->  2/3rd majority for Silverstripe
reason to vote for Silverstripe was in most cases that a fast go-live
is expected and that there are people to do administration and take
care about content
reason to vote for Drupal was the higher flexibility (and therefore
better long-term solution) as well as having several people with good
knowledge about drupal
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."

Let me say that it's not that I'm against the adoption of Drupal per
se. But I think that it would have to be proven that it's in the
community's interests, and I would not like to see the project
bulldozed through hype, disinformation and hypothetical claims.

Strange, I have not seen any cases of "bulldozed through hype, disinformation and hypothetical claims" used in any of the communication from the Drupal team. I would certainly not want to be part of any team where this would take place without proper redress. I, for one, would certainly like to be informed of any such claims if you or anyone else has any such information.

The Drupal team offers, as according to the SC decision relayed to the members of the TDF/LO (, an alternative to the Silverstripe solution to be ready within the next 6 months. As per the discussion at the Oct. 27th meeting (see voice recording here: as the written notes are not that complete regarding the Drupal 6 month requirements), the SC would like to see Drupal plans, guidelines, site structure as well as analyse the needs of the community in order to facilitate group participation on the site. The bulk of this has been done by the Drupal team.

If you have followed the threads the major concerns about the CMS' is with regards with the localisation and translation facilities within the website structure. There will be the possibility of using the Drupal translation facilities in a very structured way (static pages and wherever the translation is optimal) and the localisation teams will certainly be accommodated with tools necessary to complete their task conveniently -- the consultative process will best determine their needs. Language groups will additionally have full control over their Drupal website pages. We will need to discuss whether we, as a group, will want a homogeneous approach to the construction of the page structure within the language group sites -- again, through a consultative process.

Members of the team have been participating in different lists and monitoring the requirements of different groups and trying to find solutions that are acceptable to these groups. Research into appropriate Drupal extensions/modules were then made and implementation of these is on-going. You can see this progress here:

Taking a sober look at the Drupal site, it is already quite at an advanced stage considering the very few weeks it has been worked on. It has been remarked on quite a few occasions by TDF/LO members as to why content could not be added to the Drupal site already and go with it. For those unfamiliar with the site you may see it here:

As you can see, the Drupal site may in fact be in the members' and community interest as it is quite a flexible CMS as well as having quite a multitude of modules and most importantly to the TDF/LO a large community pool of help resources if called upon. Again, finding members adept at running Drupal sites across all language memberships is more likely than any other CMS.


David Nelson



Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.