Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Le 2011-01-18 17:57, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :

The problem is not drupal the technology, but that people were not
listening to each other.

That really is the biggest problem. The impression people got is that
drupal team is only interested in pushing drupal, not in how community
works. You cannot force people to use whatever feature just because it
is available in future when people have been using another solution
for years that just fits their needs.

Sophie (as member of the SC) and others did attempt several times to
point this out, but basically it always continued like that.

As you say, people were not listening to each other. As a LibO member who did participate on the Drupal team and helped organise it under the impression that, clearly, the SC had given us the go ahead with the possibility of moving on to the Drupal CMS within 6 months. The proposal put to the membership by the Drupal group was that Drupal would act more as a hub offering windows to the various LibO communities. Somehow this also got lost in the disinformation that was being passed around.

LO does not start completely from scratch. It has 10 years of history
it shares with the project. During that time, various
ways of collaboration have formed, various tools are used. You cannot
just throw that all away and force it all into drupal.

So, would you be OK with having a Drupal site acting as a hub directing traffic to the different sites? This is then the question. Would it not be more impressive to have people think that we are a whole community? Would it not be more advantageous to find all of the connections in one spot? Would not this give us all a sense of community?

Also it was stressed many times that we urgently need a website with
content, a css theme, etc. But instead on working on a theme together,
drupal just did their own "in the backyard" - and then that in turn
led to the situation where David and very few others had to do it all
by themselves, under quite a bit of time pressure. And the frustrating
part about it was that while there were many requests for help "please
provide content, please help with the theme" there was no feedback, no
help offers, but instead one had to read "tada - look at our beautiful
drupal theme", or "we got great plans, we envision<whatever>". So in
fact SC's statement comes much too late.

Yes, the urgent need for content. Unfortunately, the Silverstripe team had, at the time, assured the SC that the site would be up and running in a matter a few weeks. We were led to believe that all of the site would just be available to all for use in so little time. What was not said, is that, in fact, the Silverstripe had not prepared any IA or any sort of planning for the actual web development and that it would be done on a "first come first serve" meritocratic way. Unfortunately, it was, and still is, quite difficult to find any members experienced enough in Silverstripe in any group who wanted to step up and help out. They just did not exist as Silverstripe is a newcomer to the CMS world and very few people have experience with it.

However, the Drupal site developers, who had been led to believe from the SC that we had a 6 month delay to prep a Drupal solution, were busy organising and raising a Drupal solution in a very organised way. Contrary to the Silverstripe CMS team, Drupal devs can easily be found in any of the NL groups or on any mailist. We even had offers of Drupal website dev. companies offering their help. It was therefore inevitable that Drupal development would outstrip the Silverstripe (it is still comparably still quite advanced). It was often said that the Drupal devs were not interested in learning about a new CMS as they would have no use for it in their professional work. They were only interested in a Drupal site. Drupal devs are just more easily found and greater in number than Silverstripe devs.

As for adding content, well, why was this not planned when the SC was assured that the site would be ready within a short time frame? So, the excuse for having no content for the Silverstripe site is that the Drupal team were being too organised or that they were negligent in providing content? I would find it strange that for some reason, ALL of the content contributors were on the Drupal side? Then why was Silverstripe chosen?

Again, as pointed out earlier, you just have to visit the Silverstripe and wiki pages to see. Again, these sections speak volumes. You just cannot blame the Drupal devs for the lack of documentation on the Silverstripe site. Otherwise, with this kind of rationale, the wrong CMS solution was picked then as there are simply that many more experienced Drupal developers who could make the LO site workable. IMHO, with so many more Drupal experienced website devs, had the Drupal CMS been chosen, we would have had more membership participation and less bickering. But OK, Silverstripe was chosen over Drupal as the competition had drawn to a close.

But then again: Drupal is not "dead" at all - it should just be clear
that the primary focus must be the site that is public for the user.


Sadly, the constant reminder that the Drupal CMS solution is not dead and may be considered later is disheartening. This is just saying, that, if the Silverstripe site doesn't work, well, we will be sorry to everyone and move to Drupal anyway. Regardless of any outcome, the SC will just have to come to terms with the fact that, for a large site such as LbiO with a potential of 100 million users/downloads, most serious devs would recommend the use of a Drupal CMS solution. You will constantly have to explain your reasons for picking Silverstripe ... or maybe just add it to a FAQ.



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.