On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 15:38 +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: > Maybe i am missing the problematic point, but i think a screencast may > be better than beta sites where everybody plays. A screencast can show Most of the i18n problematic relies not on current processes you can capture in a session but on processes to be defined/designed. We have also 5 other problematic points, many of them difficult or imposible to show in a screencast: look&feel, learning curve, security & upgrades, user management and contributors around. There is also a problem of time. We have got months to play with CMSs and now it's time to decide. We haven't done it properly, I agree, but in any case we are caring more about the CMS selection than many open & closed organizations, where there is a discussion, someone decides, and implements the tool, and that's it. As said, I will come up tomorrow Monday with a CMS selected and the reasons why I think we should build wgo with it. > Lets define how much people should express their readiness to work > with this CMS solution (on the CMS pages). I would say we would need > at least 5 users that definitely say that they know the CMS and could > do the work. Sorry to disagree again. I'm currently in paranoia mode and I don't trust anybody just for the fact of saying "yes, I can help" (we have read this several times in the last months). I have grounded reasons to think that both Henrius and Ramon can start, lead and finish the wgo implementation with the CMSs they propose. I'm not sure that we would have the quantity and quality of resources to match the requirements with the dismissed CMSs without missing deadlines. This has been one of the reasons to dismiss them. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part