fantasai wrote:
> http://fantasai.tripod.com/Mozilla/2000/reorg.txt
>
> It's a rough outline--not very complete.
Unless anyone can think of a good reason not to, I'd go with this. Seems
logical enough and can provide good cross-referencing between modules.
I'm sure if there are problems we can adjust this design to take them
into account.
Next problem is to identify exactly what information we have currently,
and see if the above design works well with it. If things seem sound, we
need to find out from the people who write content for the site what
they want from mozilla.org v2.
While that is happening we should all raise our hands and be counted as
site staff... Who other than Gerv is going to join me in that? All raise
your left hand now! :)
James.
