[Zope3-dev] Re: zope3 website report?

[Jim Fulton]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey Philipp,
> 
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>> Here's my 2 cents, even if I might be too late (but hey, when should
>> I have brought this up?): I think it's a *bad* idea to host Zope 3 on
>> its own site, because:
>>
>> a) It will be yet another systems we need maintainance volunteers
>> for. As it seems we don't even have enough for the current zope.org
>> right now. If we had more volunteers with more time on their hands,
>> they would have already been on the matter and the dog-slow system
>> would have been improved a long time ago (note that I'm not
>> necessarily saying replaced). A zope3.org will eventually need some
>> caching, it will eventually need user management, etc. We already
>> have a human resource problem on the development side, what makes
>> everyone think we won't have it on the maintainance side?
> 
> 
> A counterargument to this would be that volunteers to maintain the
> present zope.org infrastructure and content are hard to find. A leaner,
> meaner, separate zope3.org might find more people that want to be involved.

Exactly.  Unfortunately, zope.org is a mess.

My hope (and I suggested this sprint topic) was that, as Martijn said,
we could get a lean mean useful site for Zope3.

My hope is that, if this happens, that this might be a useful prototype
for a future zope.org site.

In the long run, my hope is that we will have a single zope site
that talks about both Zope 2 and Zope 3.  Perhaps, if the zope3 site
is successful, then the zope 3 site will morph into a combined site.

> Sorting out the content of zope.org, which has been carried around for
> more than half a decade, is a job I wouldn't volunteer for. Helping to
> write some content for a fresh new site and figuring out what fits where
> is something I *am* volunteering for.

Yay


>> Putting WYSIWYG integration into a list of first-class todo items
>> seems like wrong prioritization to me (I'd rather have a stable
>> backend first),

You are probably right.

An HTML only wiki was my idea because I find wiki markup, of it's
various flavors to be a real obstical to collaboration. I appreciate
that not everyone agrees with me on this.  It was, probably, unfair of
me to request this.

What I want most is a table usable zope.org, with zope3.org
as a possible first step toward that goal.

...
> I think it's important to try to separate the content
> production/technology aspect of things, which the sprint apparently
> focused on from the actual site content aspects.

Yup

>  From what I can see, the sprint focused on using Zope 3 technologies to
> build a Zope 3 site. To use Zope 3 for a Zope 3 site seems a good idea
> from the marketing perspective already --  we want to demonstrate we can
 > eat our own dogfood.

My expectation is that it might also make it more likely for people
to want to help with development and maintenance.

 > The idea seems to have been to use a wiki for this,
> something which also has a predecent within the Zope community, as well
> as in the open source community at large.

The advantage of Wiki, IMO being that it requires the least up front
design. :)

 > The whole WYSIWYG HTML-edit
> wiki thing is a neat idea involving using HTML as the wiki markup
> language instead of something else. We'll just have to see how that
> works out.

While I really want this, I don't want it to get in the way of
a successful site.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org