Re: WGO structure

[Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net>]

Hi, 

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:06:07 +0100 (BST)
Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com> wrote:

> --- Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net> wrote:
>
> > The structure lacks a portal for third-party
> > developers: This is
> > GNOME's most important product. The desktop has no
> > real selling points
> > unless lots of third-party dev's use the dev.
> > platform. 
>
> Fair enough. Could you add something to the plan for
> this? It's completely outside my experiences, so I
> have no idea what is needed.

There was something in the old plan that you removed from the
pages. ;-)

Here's an updated version:

Development
  |- Get started
  |- Overview
  |- Documentation
  |- (Certification -- when done)
  `- Embedded

Just think about it like a short introduction to these points. For
example: 'Certification' shouldn't describe how you get a package
certified, but why you should bother getting it certified! Then, a few
links to the relevant pages and that's it.

We also don't show the documentation here; we just provide an
overview how our documentation is organized.

Other pages can be added or removed as necessary.


> > We don't need a whole portal for contributors.
> > Contributors cannot be
> > convinced by a few web pages. They grow slowly into
> > helping. And most of
> > them are hardcore enthusiasts and geeks, anyway, so
> > they can deal with
> > live.gnome.org as a portal for contributors.
>
> I can live with that.
> But something has to be done about live.g.o's
> ugliness.
> Would you then mention contributing on the community
> page?
>  

Yes. And I'd probably also mention it at the end of the development
protal, in different words. 


> > Next, I'm not quite sure whether it makes sense to
> > sort gnomefiles and
> > art.gnome site by site to the LiveCD, the release
> > notes, and the
> > sources.
>
> I wasn't sure about that either.... Quim persuaded me.
> Where would you put the links to those sites?
> I had a top-level section for 'cool things to do with
> your gnome', but the only things I could think of were
> art and gnomefiles... which doesn't make very many things.

I think, 'Community' makes sense for them -- We could merge them under
one header like 'Improve your GNOME' or so.


Cheers,
Claus