Thanks Sigurd for catching up with the deadline and publish the
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/WebPolicies draft.
Anyone willing to concentrate in authoring and licensing? It's the last
urgent task looking for at least one person in charge. We only need a
first draft, surely further ideas and
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 13:47 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
After the wgo revamp BoF meeting at Vilanova I'm in charge of pushing a
list of tasks we agree to do during 2006, and a timeline.
Here is the draft: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/DevelopmentTimeline
Constructive criticism of the
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 13:47 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
After the wgo revamp BoF meeting at Vilanova I'm in charge of pushing a
list of tasks we agree to do during 2006, and a timeline.
Here is the draft: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/DevelopmentTimeline
Constructive criticism of the
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 13:47 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
After the wgo revamp BoF meeting at Vilanova I'm in charge of pushing a
list of tasks we agree to do during 2006, and a timeline.
Here is the draft: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/DevelopmentTimeline
Constructive criticism of the
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 10:08 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
... and the i18n module still appears to be a patch, as well as terribly
inefficient in terms of database access and design. As much as I enjoy
Drupal, I really don't think it has a good answer to content translation at
this point.
All of
On 7/11/06, Quim Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, we are approaching to a point of negotiation. Christian Rose
has made some good observations at
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/Localization and John Hwang seems to have
an interesting proposal for a decent solution for now (I hope tavon
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
... and the i18n module still appears to be a patch,
Are you talking about this http://drupal.org/project/i18n ?!
as well as terribly inefficient in terms of database access and design.
Don't know about this
I really don't think it has a good answer to content translation at this
point.
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 15:46 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
I think this is very debatable. For instance,
guadec.org was (is) far from perfect and, in fact, it lacks many points
any decent website should have. None of the points you make have direct
relation with the CMS, but to our lack of
Hi :o)
About Drupal vs MediaWiki vs etc, there is not much point discussing
tools before agreeing requirements. By July 17th Greg Nagy needs to come
up with a list of requirements for the wgo platform (CMS). Help him with
the requirements if you want to help selecting the most appropriate
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 00:58 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 12:25 -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
[snip]
And I did not make it clearer because I've already exposed this concern
to qgil in the process of setting up drupal for guadec.org.
As said, I don't think the
Another issue that we have to double check for any ready CMS system is
the security. I'm not stating that Drupal is insecure or have such a bad
history. But we have to bear in mind that any common CMS or Wiki
application might have some security problems in future which might be
problem for us as
quote who=Guilherme de S. Pastore
Il giorno gio, 06/07/2006 alle 14.02 +0200, Quim Gil ha scritto:
July 26th: End of www.gnome.org revamp planning (aka feature freeze).
Policies, licensing and wgo platform (CMS) agreed.
*Please* not drupal.
I think a worthwhile rule for this entire
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:25 -0400, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
Il giorno sab, 08/07/2006 alle 00.06 +1000, Jeff Waugh ha scritto:
I think a worthwhile rule for this entire process should be: No criticism
without solution. So please explain your point of view so it can be taken
seriously,
On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:25 -0400, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
Il giorno sab, 08/07/2006 alle 00.06 +1000, Jeff Waugh ha scritto:
I think a worthwhile rule for this entire process should be: No criticism
without solution. So please
(Please keep marketing-list cc:ed)
On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:26 +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:25 -0400, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
Il giorno sab, 08/07/2006
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 21:28 +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
(Please keep marketing-list cc:ed)
/me blames evo
Ideally, there should be a minimum of efforts required to translate
www.gnome.org -- if translating or enabling a particular translation
requires sysadmin intervention, we simply
On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've reiterated this localized content discussion over and over for
several years, and the consensus has always been that official content
on www.gnome.org should have translations, while localized content
provided by local communities
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 12:25 -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
However, I've already seen and faced all kinds of problems with drupal,
from security to upgradability issues
Could you be more specific about these problems? The ones I remember
were not caused directly by Drupal but by
a)
After the wgo revamp BoF meeting at Vilanova I'm in charge of pushing a
list of tasks we agree to do during 2006, and a timeline.
Here is the draft: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/DevelopmentTimeline
Highlights: we can follow the GNOME release cycle, unveil the wgo
revamped on September
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 13:53 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Hopefully, like the GNOME release schedule, if a feature is not
sufficiently ready on time, it will be punted to the next release
Definitely:
July 26th: End of www.gnome.org revamp planning (aka feature freeze).
Policies, licensing and
21 matches
Mail list logo
