[ZWeb] Front Page & Other Changes

[Ken Manheimer]

Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk> writes:

> Mark wrote:
> > I just don't have the screen real estate to have an IRC window open all
> > day and the time zone thing is sometimes a problem as well.
> 
> Then just reply to emails, it seems to be working okay...

I think there's some increasing misunderstanding about the point of the IRC
communication.

I thought the idea is to use IRC is for collision avoidance.  When you're
actually doing some management activity on zope.org, first log into IRC and
let others there know where you're heading.  Then, keep an eye on the IRC
session while you're working.  If everyone does this, then you'll be able
to notice each other and, well, avoid colliding.  (Ack, nack - rts?  Cts.
Dtr xoff!  Xon, dsr.  Ten-four, rover, out and over. :)

There's no need to restrict discussions about ideas and design choices to
real-time.  Use a mailling list, and give a chance for people who've
invested time and energy to participate.

> > Find a bowl or a bucket because its impossible to discuss reorganizing
> > the site without looking at structure.
>
> Why are we re-organizing?! How many more re-organisations does Zope.org
> need? This was all done with NZO, and I remember other efforts before that.
>
> > Alternatively you can pull out a Thesaurus and I'll agree to use a
> > different word :-)
>
> How about just hard graft editing of the two main books already there and
> that are already structured, along with a simplification rather than
> re-complification of the documentation structure!

What the *fuck* do you think "simplification" is, chris?  Are only your own
ideas about reorganizing worth considering, all others being too
complicated?

I don't think you intend that, but i do think that's the effect of your
actions.

I hear you objecting to overwrought and overambitious designs, and think
that's a wise caution which we should all take to heart.  I also hear you
dismissing several people's requests to stop taking unilateral action, and
i think that's unwise disregard for other people's concerns and insight.
You're doing some good things, and i hope you keep it up.  But i don't
think it's a net win if we get the benefit of your contributions at the
cost of more difficulty and more alienation for other contributors.  What i
*really* want is to get the benefit of your energy and earnest efforts in a
way that doesn't so directly dismiss other's concerns.

So i guess i'm asking you to reconsider people's requests to make a draft
of a page before putting it in place, particularly if it's a relatively
prominent page, like say the home page of the site.  You don't have to give
a long time for review, but you *do* have to see what you can do to
entertain objections and try to coordinate with others who are also
contributing.  Ideally, i'd like to see zope.org reap the benefits of both
your and mark's efforts (and other's, as well), and not just one or the
other of you.

> >> Then I'd encourage you to make that change! I certainly have no problems
> >> with it. In fact, something else I wanted to ask is how long those ads
> >> should stay there, and who decides what ads are appropriate.
> > That is exactly the point Chris. I don't think you or I should
> > unilaterally make this change.
> 
> Why not? We are all sensible and responsible adults. I don't think any of
> us would do anything unreasonable, and if people felt that we had, I'm sure
> none of us would have a problem undoing the changes and having further
> discussion...

On the one hand you're suggesting that people in this group just make the
changes they want, and on the other you're (elsewhere) saying you disagree
with other people's choices - eg, including ZopeMag among the zope exits.
Sensible and reasonable adults recognize that they sometimes have
legitimate disagreements, and need to discuss them rather than having a
tug-of-war.  That's a darn good reason to not just make unilateral changes
- not just for other people's changes with which you might disagree, but
with your own.

Note well that i'm not suggesting anything extreme - i'd like to see a
consenting-adults, liberal-action do-the-easy-things-easily approach.  But
that requires sensitivity to and respect for the controversial situations,
eg, discussing and coming to some kind of agreement about the potentially
controversial things before committing them.  (And, from the other
direction, not being too picky, letting the minor things pass without
discussion.)

> > Zope.com pays for Zope.org hosting and seems to consider these Ads as a
> > type of payback for their efforts.
> 
> It's interesting to note that the only comment from anyone at Zope.com on
> the changes I've made has been a positive one ;-)

If the expense of your contributions is the disruption of other's
good-faith attempts to contribute, then consider this a negative comment.

That said, i am *overwhemingly* relieved, for instance, to see the removal
from the home page of *overwhelmingly* obtrusive and ugly notice about the
now-ancient transition from old zope.org to new zope.org.  I am sure i'm
not the only one who yearns to see zope.org actively tended by a vital
group of people, and think you all are starting to make that happen.  The
specifics of what you do and having a group to do it together are equally
important.  We *can* have both, it just takes a little bit of restraint.

"Envision Whirled Peas"

Ken
klm at zope.com

  In the years since, Alice, too, has seen the ones who shake and scream
  and roll their eyes back as if snakebit, but she has always doubted
  the sincerity of this.  Anybody can get worked up if they have the
  intention.  It's peacefulness that is hard to come by on purpose.
                                          - Barbara Kingsolver