[OpenAFS] New OpenAFS website proposal.

[Derrick Brashear]

Sorry for the radio silence the last few days

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Jakub Witkowski <jpw@jabster.pl> wrote:
> 2010/11/26 Jason Edgecombe <jason@rampaginggeek.com>:
>> On 11/26/2010 01:55 PM, Steve Simmons wrote:
>>>
>>> In re plone vs this-that-the-other, Xwiki vs. Ywiki, etc -
>>>
> [...]
>>
>> One challenge is that we don't have a site manager.
>>
>> Here are the authors of commits to the web site since 2009-01-01
>> Derrick Brashear (58)
>> Jason Edgecombe (21)
>> Jeffrey Altman (16)
>> Russ Allbery (2)
>> Simon Wilkinson (1)
>>
>> Derrick and Jeff's commits mostly deal with releases, and mine mostly de=
al
>> with the newsletter.
>>
>> Volunteers for site manager are welcome.
>>
>
> I am willing to take that task up.
>
> That said, let me clarify my current position.
> 1. Yes, documentation should be kept in git.
> =A0 My initial mistake was caused by that I let the revision table at
> the start of User Guide to colour my opinion; simply seeing that,
> according to the revision table on first page, last update happened
> more than ten years ago, made me thought that the website version of
> it has never been actually touched up.

Probably the tool that "emits" the documentation from git should write a
correct revision table, and in this vein we illustrate some of the toolsmit=
hing
we need.

> 2. I believe that using CMS, in long term, we can save time to those
> central to the project - that is, those who usually have the least of
> it to do things like adding new bits to the website.

Might I propose a CMS that works not unlike Apple's iWeb, namely,
that allows editing and "publishing" a site, rather than requiring specific
software be installed on the server, might fit better what people
expect here. And if for some reason we would end up in a situation
where the toolchain becomes orphaned, we have the content in a form
(HTML) that can be imported into a different solution.

> 3. While Plone is my personal favourite, I am willing to argue that; I
> do not presume that this piece of software is best for all
> circumstances.

I'm not opposed to it, personally. I have no strong take at all.
My desire to be able to "syndicate" our website by publishing into
our own file system and thus serving it out of web servers
worldwide to showcase the technology is really the only
strong feeling whatever I have on the matter.

> 4. I am willing to put considerable time into making the website not
> only "pretty" but also quite usable.

Thank you.