Hello Michael, Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, Michael Wheatland <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to > > mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: > > with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. > > Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org ah, okay. > > > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your > > enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them > > to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans > > to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early > > misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position > > (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be > > useful to you to take my words into account. > > To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision > statement from the Steering Committee decision. > > The conversation on the conference call: > "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed > planning in the next month regarding additional services..." right. > There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality > sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider > Drupal as the long term solution. I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution" means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision requesting the use of Drupal. > > > The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: > "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, > with plans to migrate to Drupal later on." > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 "plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the definitive Drupal website"... > > I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the > outcome Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for the long term. > and the website team has had a large group of people (larger > than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom > might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. > Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to > involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just an option. > > I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not > just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement > as communicated back to the website mailing list. > Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
