NZO content administration (was: Re: [ZWeb] Zope.org feedback: Welcome to Zope.org)

Erik Lange erik@digitalforbruger.dk
Mon, 03 Mar 2003 02:41:28 +0100


At 12:49 AM 3/3/03, Andy McKay wrote:
>>>>When you have extremely stale content on a site like this you make it
>>>>>next to impossible for people to justify Zope as a viable technology.
>
>>I believe it's important that the new zope.org won't have this problem, 
>>and therefore it should not be build on products that have choosen to 
>>differ from the current path of CMF, even if it speeds up the production 
>>of a NZO - or we will have the same problem in six months or sooner... 
>>unless ofcourse, if the choosen product is going to be the official CMF 
>>implementation in the future...
>
>Oh give it break for crying out loud. I make it really hard to take these 
>seriously when anything broken on Zope.org is Plone's fault.

Huh ?

I believe you've misunderstood my post... I'm not blaming anybody for the 
current Zope.org - actually I love the current Zope.org, and my point is, 
that I don't see the need to update the site itself, but only sees a need 
for tighter content administration/updating policies.

But Jeffrey wrote: "The current Zope.org site pioneered a lot of Zope 
technologies and ideas that have found their way into newer software 
offerings, but sadly it cannot take advantage of those newer offerings".

Regarding the technology-choice for NZO, I believe this a lesson worth 
listening to... so I'm only saying, that I believe we should use "plain" 
CMF-technology for NZO, so that it will be expanable with all new 
CMF-products that might come up in the future... now, a few weeks ago, you 
told me that Plone has "chosen a different path" on implementing the CMF, 
and I just sees a danger here, if that means that products relaying on the 
current official path can't be to the advantage of NZO in the future. 
Alternatively, the "Plone-way" should officially be recognized as _the_ way 
of implementing the CMF. Either one will work for me ;-)

>**The reason the content is not updated is because the content has not 
>been updated.**

And that's what I'm talking about, in the part of my post that you've 
cutted out... so the qouete you've left in, has got nothing to do with the 
parts you're commenting ;-)

>We have a webmaster, Mr Shell who is doing a good job. Let him do his job. 
>We could have content rotate, be shown at random or not show at all.

Yes - but shouldn't we discuss these options too ?

>My golly how does Plone.org and ZopeZen.org get content up? Dunno, somehow 
>they manage to use Plone. My left toe is hurting, it isnt the skiing, 
>Plone on NZO's fault.

I don't understand what you're saying here... sorry :-(

Keeping content uptodate, has got (almost) nothing to do with whatever 
system you're using - IMHO - but is more a matter of hard work from the 
editors of a site and the site's content contributers. What I'm trying to 
say is, that no matter how NZO is build, we should also look at how to 
organize content contribution and managing. That's not a technical discussion.


Greetings,
Erik Lange