Gervase Markham wrote:
[ snip ]
> It was decided that it would be a good idea to have both a short term and
> a long term plan. On the one hand, "If it's better tomorrow, that's good"
> but, on the other hand, we are probably not going to reach where we want
> to be by making incremental improvements to the current site. The idea is
> therefore to set up two teams - a short-term team (STT) and a long-term
> team (LTT), with at least one person on both.
If the STT were to change the location of files/content AT ALL then this
would be incredibly dangerous. Information must be kept where it is
right now, else people will change their bookmarks (or worse lose it
completely) and then become very angry when the LTT changes evenutally
go live.
The STT team MUST ONLY improve the BASICS of the current site. That is,
improve the links contained on the current files, and not move them.
We don't want the LTT team to be working on the work of the STT team
since they would be a moving target. If for example someone in the STT
team were to move a load of QA docs to a "more sensible place" then
links and cvs would be changed and the LTT team would need to decide
whether to incorporate that change into their structure or to change it
back, or more likely change it to where they feel is suitable in the LTT
team's plans.
In short, without extreme caution, this STT team idea could turn into a
potentially disaterous idea.
> The STT will look at things which can be done, within the current site
> structure, to make information more accessible. This could include (for
> example) rewriting index pages, providing some form of simple dmoz-alike
> index, or changing the links in the current sidebar.
However content must remain at the current URLs, no pages may be
removed. Only links should be added to other pages. Nothing new, nothing
removed.
> The LTT will look at where we want to be, ideally, in six months time, and
> work towards implementing that. This could include (for example)
> prototyping in various different site-management engines, working towards
> total page standards-compliance or implementing an FTP-to-CVS gateway.
We have not yet managed to settle on any one plan for URLs or for
filesystem structure, nor for which doctype to use, or whether to use
tables. The chances of us getting around to implementing stuff other
than a redesign and re-organisation is fairly minimal. We must keep to
the basics.
> Both teams are currently recruiting, and open to anyone ;-) I've stuck my
> hand up to be a member of the STT.
I'll go for the LTT personally, since I don't believe the STT team
should really devote resources to a dead-duck.
James Green
