On 31 May 2001, at 10:31, Alan wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 12:36:36PM +0200, Branko Collin wrote:
> > I have yet to see the first word on what the content for
> > www.gimp.org should be.
> > > Maybe I missed that discussion?
> I don't remember seeing it either. I think though that the point of
> creating a dynamic content system is so that the content is easier to
> manage and update (the gimp site doesn't change much from what I've
> seen). It would be nice to have a bit more of a blog in the gimp.org
> site like news.gimp.org, to get more info.
> Using zope/perl/php/whatever for it would give the ability for people
> to change the content.
> Or at least I hope this is the point, I'd hate to see gimp.org going a
> bloated backend system just for the sake of having it there because
> all the other themes.org/slashdot/osdn sites have it :)
That is what I fear, too. It would seem that if people put as much
time and energy in updating the site as in thinking about nifty ways
to automatically update the site, we would have no problems running a
Do not get me wrong, have nothing against a good CMS, but I do think
the method should fit the goal, not the other way around. In my
opinion, it would be a good plan to get a clear idea of what we want
to have on a new site.
As Marc Lehman mentioned: maybe it is a good idea to have a leaner
site, with more links to external stuff and less content to worry
about ourselves. This would be in line with making a leaner core
Gimp-developer mailing list