No issue , Email does encourage more ad hoc posts this can be good or bad , you will get less posts on a site but of better quality.
Source control prefer github , and issues i used Jira but have no love for it that said it works. githubs issue system is getting better and is a good lightweight one where you don't have a huge head count Ben On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm going to bring up a CMS for the BitC project. Unless there are really > strong objections, I'm going to go with (shudder) Drupal. Drupal frankly > scares the crap out of me from a site security standpoint, but we need to > move into an environment where we can do a better job of curating the > discussion and the process. Drupal certainly isn't the only tool that can > do that, but it does have the advantage that bringup is quick and a lot of > what we need to do is already supported. > > So first: is there a* compelling and inarguable* reason to use a > different platform? I'm not interested in "Drupal sucks" or "I like X > better" answers. Answers of the form "We need to do X, Y, Z to be effective > as a community, and <this CMS> does those things better than Drupal does > with lower administrative overhead and lower security exposure" are > interesting. > > But let me be brutally honest: I'm more interested in getting this up and > running than I am in getting it perfect. Migration is a bitch, but so is > Trinity (http://patterpatter.blogspot.com/2013/12/holiday-house-guest.html > ). > > The choices, in my view, are: > > - Drupal: Has most of what we need, needs a lot of setup to get it > tuned > - Joomla: Likewise, but doesn't seem to do as much of what we need out > of the box (e.g. MathJax). > - Plone: More a platform than a CMS. Would take a lot of development > effort that I don't want to spend the time on. > > As I mentioned earlier, I want to move into an environment where we can do > more curation of our content. That means: > > - A mechanism for comments on documents leading toward their > improvement/evolution, and a way of deciding when the comments have been > addressed and can be removed or marked "historical". > - A similar mechanism for discussions, where the outcomes of comments > get merged into linearized documents through curation. > - Preserving a place for informal discussions, but probably through > the CMS rather than email. > - A means of differentiating "normative" documents from > "non-normative" documents, and differentiating workflows accordingly. > - A place where views *other than mine* can be first-class. I'm not > going to let go of ultimate administrative authority for legal reasons, but > I've stood firm that it's not appropriate for me to edit the words of > others. I have kicked abusers off the list, and I've occasionally sent > stimulated encouragements to one or two people, but I very firmly believe > that your words are yours. > - That said, a place where I can sensibly differentiate between the > "official" presentation of BitC and the various opinions. Not because the > "official" view is better. Simply because it's the view that I'm willing to > be accountable for, and differentiating that view from yours is part of > making sure that your view can be preserved and supported. > > Secondary goals would include some ability to support a code browsing > interface from mercurial or git, and an issue tracking system. > > So that's *my* list of goals, and my questions for you are: > > 1. What really important things have I missed? > 2. If we moved from a mailing list to a CMS-based discussion system, > would that impact your participation? Positively or negatively? > 3. Given these goals, is there a strongly compelling reason to adopt a > solution other than Drupal? > > > shap > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
