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

Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS - Prototype or demo?


Hi Marc, Ben, all,

Marc Paré schrieb:
Le 2010-10-25 09:20, Benjamin Horst a écrit :

On Oct 25, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Bernhard Dippold wrote:

The following wasn't written by me, but by Marc ;-)
I don't think that a demo should have all of the features active
when it
was thrown together in so little time. It is not work messing up your
server space with potential hacking.

As mentioned earlier, the problem derives from calling the testing
area "demo". If it had been called "minimal version to start with"
all these necessary functions would have probably been included from
the beginning.

Common sense will show that missing functions can be included.

Common sense shows, that nearly every function can be included in
Drupal. But it *has to be* included to start working with the CMS.

And time is too short to discuss the features - we have to start
creating websites with whatever CMS will have been chosen.

It feels like we're on a slippery slope here, with some folks thinking
we're still in demo phase, and others thinking we're already starting
a prototype phase. Let's just draw a line in the sand and choose one
or the other, and make it explicit so that everyone in this discussion
is on the same page.

A "demo" can only "demonstrate" what is included. If I remember Christian's first mail right, he asked for a "working demo" to try out how the features are working, where might be problems and what is easier to use for the non-techy webpage editor.

This is a prototype in my eyes - and with the time restrictions I think it should be even more: A system that is easily to be switched to the live website.

But let's hear what Christian meant - and perhaps what André is heading for.

Until the decision of the Steering Committee there is still the
chance to include the modules in the Drupal "demo". This would give
the SC a real possibility to decide:
In my eyes allowing the people waiting for the starting shot to
create their webpages *now* is the main precondition for their
decision. What I read from Christian's mails this is still not
possible for Drupal, so there might be no real decision...

I created a new table on the wiki page comparing only the necessities
for going live with either Drupal or SilverStripe.

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website/Evaluation_of_CMS_Platforms#Preconditions_to_go_live_with_one_of_the_CMS


I didn't test these features in both of the CMS as I don't have the
time ATM. I just added, what I remember from the discussion here.

Please update the table with your experiences.

It appears there is a "yes" for everything for Drupal here, and almost
everything for SS.

Did you extend already the list with the features Christian missed in Drupal?

I had a quick search in his mails and got:

Workflow system (request for publication and checked by others)
Comparison of different revisions (I only see "revert" and "delete")
Insertion of tables

Have these all been included by now? I can't find them in the Drupal demo.

Others have been added (enabling headers, links for example).

The module able to take care of changed internal links seems not to be installed by now ...

I'll add these points to the wiki.

>> [...]
I would go even further and say that we should just cool things down,
wait for the official SC answer --- a sort of freeze.

I would not wait for a decision at the moment: With not properly working demo/prototype Drupal will not have any chance IMHO.

And as the Drupal proponents can't include the already mentioned parts and bits in their demo, this might shed a bad light on their intention/ability to include them later on.

I want Drupal to be considered as real alternative to SilverStripe, but with these drawbacks can't be fair. I'm not able to do these improvements to Drupal (neither in time nor in skills), so I'll have to leave it to people with more experience in this field.

If Drupal is
picked, we have an abundance of committed webmaster help and training
help and it will be put together quite quickly. I don't think we will be
serving any purpose by spending time filling out pages on a "potential
website" only to have that work nullified by a pick for the opposing CMS.

If it really takes so much time to have these conditions integrated in Drupal, we should stay with SilverStripe.

Christian set up a demo where people already try to build the pages they would need in future. If Drupal proponents don't think that a working demo is worthwhile to convince Christian and the SC about the ability of their CMS to allow webpages creation *now*, I can't do anything more...

The SC gave us till the end of the week and even hinted that we were not
progressing fast enough.

Right - and nobody seems to work on the topic any more.

So, we should all take a breath and relax.

... with Drupal demo still lacking some of the most important features... :-(


A couple of extra days delay will not kill the project.

No - but if these days are not considered to be important to close the gap between SilverStripe and Drupal, they are really wasted...

We could take some time to register a members page on the Wiki so that
we are easily identified.[...]

Of course - it's good to know who we are. I already created my user page in the wiki:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Bedipp

A wiki page where all the active members of this mailing list are listed is a good idea - but less important than the CMS decision IMHO.

Best regards

Bernhard

--
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 CMS - Prototype or demo?Carlos Jenkins <hastciberneo@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS - Prototype or demo?Christian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
References:
[libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS"Andre Schnabel" <Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSKeith Williams <kwilliams@thoughtfarmproductions.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBernhard Dippold <bernhard@familie-dippold.at>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBernhard Dippold <bernhard@familie-dippold.at>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBernhard Dippold <bernhard@familie-dippold.at>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBernhard Dippold <bernhard@familie-dippold.at>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.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.