[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS
- Subject: Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS
- From: Benjamin Horst <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:41:51 -0400
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Oct 21, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
> But *could* is not enough: We need a working website *now* (to be honest, we would have needed in already two weeks ago).
> What has not been communicated in the past is: The demo will be (at least I think so) the basis for the new website where the different teams should work on during the next days. There will be no time to set up a different system for the official website - so it needs to work.
This seems obvious, but unfortunately was not ever suggested before. I understand the urgency, but I do not think successful projects emerge from a requirement of "get it done now."
> People with very little experience in website construction will have to be able to create websites for their own LibreOffice/TDF area on the website.
> Especially the native-language teams, but also marketing and user support are waiting too long already.
> We're losing momentum - contributors - users if we keep on discussing the best solution.
I think we run this risk, but on the other hand, additional people keep joining the mailing list and volunteering, so we may not have to worry about it yet.
> Christian's preconditions on the wiki
> (http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website/Evaluation_of_CMS_Platforms#Requirements) have been a *minimum* condition to start working for the different teams.
> I don't know how far the Drupal demo allows a less experienced editor to do the task mentioned there - reading Christian's comments, many of them have still not been activated in the demo.
> What I miss in the wiki is a check mark showing which demo allows which task to be done already.
> This is much more a basis for the start than the possible features that could be integrated later on.
> I'd really like to focus on the latter, but we don't have the time to wait any longer.
> If we had all the *basic* features included in the demo I'm quite sure that the possibilities contained in the Drupal modules would allow us to use our website for many very interesting and highly positive things and that Drupal would be favorite over Silverstripe if it is as editor-friendly as Silverstripe (in the demo version).
> But we need to start now, so these thoughts should be proposed later.
> We can't turn back the time, so there is no chance to discuss the topic even more thoroughly and create a detailed system allowing us to do even things we don't imagine now right from the start.
> The only question is:
> Which *already built demo system* is able to allow the teams to start now:
> Is it easy enough to create and modify websites, link them to each other and to external pages?
> Is there a consistent navigation area automatically added to any newly created page?
> Does version control work?
> Are there different levels of roles established for editors and people approving modifications?
> Does the system can distinguish between different user roles (visitor, contributor, content developer ...) and show different content depending on their roles?
> Can Sub-groups work on their own area being informed if their content is modified?
> Please look at the wiki page for additional requirements, but in my eyes these are the ones fundamental for starting to work for the teams.
> If the Drupal demo allows all this *now*, I'd ask Christian to have one more look at the demo.
Yes, I believe Drupal offers everything listed above and on the wiki page.
A few days ago, I added some requirements on the wiki page referring to ad hoc group creation, things which I do not believe SilverStripe can support, based on its demo and my research.
> I really like Drupal to become our CMS, but the version we need now has to work!
> Perhaps this points to the urgency of this task - I can't do more...
Finally, I think the list of precedents deserves more weight than it has been given. I listed "peer sites" (other large, global open source projects) that use Drupal vs SilverStripe, because their experience can speed up our research--if the tool worked for them, then it almost certainly will work for us. In fact, I think this is more effective than building quick demo sites, because they have withstood the test of time under the load of large communities working on them in real-world conditions.
In this list you will notice many Drupal sites, but I did not find any SilverStripe sites. SilverStripe's own documentation pages are provided by a different platform than SilverStripe, in fact! (They use DokuWiki.)
Thanks to everyone who put thought and time into this discussion.
E-mail to email@example.com 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
|Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS||Bernhard Dippold <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS||Christian Lohmaier <email@example.com>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS
- Next by Date: Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS
- Previous by thread: Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS
- Next by thread: Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS