[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS


Le 2010-10-19 23:50, Benjamin Horst a écrit :

On Oct 19, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2010-10-18 04:37, Andre Schnabel a écrit :
Hi,

I see that there are lots of discussion, which CMS to use, what features
are needed ... at the other hand, users and language teams need more
info at our website - nad without the infrastructure in place we cannot
give more information.

The issue has been briefly discussed in the last SC-meeting and we
would ask you (the team here at the website list) to come up with a
proposal this week.

Please consider, that we will never find a solution that fits all and
we will see migrations of infrastrucure in the next year anyway.
So please help us to get a good start - but let us start.


regards,

André

Hi everyone

As you can see, the SC is giving us this week to figure out our choice of CMS.

Having now the specs., we have narrowed down the choice to Silverstripe and Drupal.

Here are the demo sites:

Silverstripes: http://pumbaa.ooodev.org:7780/ -- advocated by Christian Lohmaier

Dupal: http://www.mywebclass.org/~bhorst/contact -- advocated by Keith Williams

From here we should first examine if both of these fill the basic requirements as laid out in the specs up above.

I've added the specs to the wiki page, plus a few others I thought deserve discussion: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website/Evaluation_of_CMS_Platforms

No one has edited this page but me, since it was first created by Per and Drew. Please read and edit the page so that we can cover all our expected requirements fully.

-Ben

Benjamin Horst
bhorst@mac.com
646-464-2314 (Eastern)
www.solidoffice.com



Thanks Ben.

Does anyone else have any specs to add to the list. Today (Wednesday) is most likely the last day that specs should be added and it will leave us presumably two more days (Wednesday, Thursday) for debate, testing and viewing of results of changes on the demo sites.

I am not sure, but do we also have to have a hands up of people who are willing to contribute their time to help administer the site regardless of the choice of CMS? IMHO think that this kind of commit would be nice to submit to the SC.

Remember André's original post that the SC discussed the choice of CMS at their last meeting and the SC now wants to hear a proposal by the end of the week as to which CMS the team recommends. So, our recommendation will go to the SC as a proposal which they will consider.

I would then suggest that our proposal should then account for the following:

* CMS proposed by the team:
* Virtues of the CMS being proposed by the team:
* The shortfalls of the CMS being proposed:
* Perhaps a demo site (we would have to dress it up a little better for the SC)
* List of people who would like to commit themselves to helping with the running of the CMS:

Marc




--
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Follow-Ups:
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
References:
[libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS"Andre Schnabel" <Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
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.