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 OpenOffice.org 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
- [libreoffice-website] Re: [Drupal] The road ahead and missed opportunities (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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