On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 21:59 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
First and foremost, I miss a list of goals to be achieved within this timeframe.
True. New proposal: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/Goals
There are no dependencies defined on the development steps.
Dependencies are not shown, but they can be deduced from the deadlines. It needs improvement, sure. Tell what is unclear and I'll suggest clarifications.
Not all involved people are visible.
All people explicitly involved with responsibilities in the current release cycle are visible. If there are few names and many tasks "unnamed" is because we need more people to join, or the few of us will end up doing what we can (less, and probably worse). This is a reason that makes me feel *very* conservative planning changes for the current release.
Let's clean up the GnomeWeb wiki page while we are at it.
Yes. We only need to be careful not deleting and forgetting what was the result of long discussions and hours of work of previous and current contributors.
We have to define what's wrong with the current implementation and what we can do about it. Easier navigation, better content, nicer theme, easier editing of content, I18N, etc. We need a list like that.
I started the list of goals. Who wants to start this one?
We also need to define what's gonna be on the main gnome web site, and what's not.
What about starting really small, with few pages but really useful and exciting. Interesting texts with illustrative graphics, some screencasts, cool downloads and clear links to all the subsites. Translated to very few supported languages with strong translation teams willing to betatest. All wrapped with contemporary layouts with a GNOME desktop / Clearlooks identity and style.
Once we know what content we will provide on the site, we can define the authoring policies. Responsibles, licensing, translation, URL scheme, etc.
I disagree here, the policies can be defined without knowing the specific content of the current release. They need to be valid for more releases, and more subsites.
Then, we have to set up a staging server, where the CMS can be installed and transitioning can begin.
We need to negotiate the requirements of this server with the sysadmins. Some planned features and some elected software might not run properly on a server like i.e. the current Window with RHEL3.
We should also assess the current wgo state ASAP. Map the current content. Who were writing it? Are they still interested? Describe current system. Who was running it? How does it work? We'll need this info to justify why a new system is better.
Apparently Thomas Wood took the responsibility. Claus Schwarm is a needed counterpart. Both know a lot of the past and current state of gnome.org
I guess I'm the guinea pig to test new contributors :)
And you are doing very well. Myself am relatively new to this topic, as seemed to be many of the very active contributors at the GUADEC BoF. Hopefully we will be able to combine this fresh blood with the expertise of the ol'timers (most of them subscribed to this list and taking part in the revamp discussion). -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://guadec.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part