surprising to me. Nothing illogical in your rationale; in fact, it
equates pretty well to the world-view i held before i became acquainted
with the zope.org way of working, wherein:
* anyone that takes the minimal step of self-registering for a free
account (in exchange for only a bit of personal info - most importantly,
a valid email address) does gain thereby their own website, in effect; and
* ALL development/ decisionmaking process are conducted openly "in the
fishbowl," and while not all comers can edit fishbowl documents, all
comers are eligible for such permissions, on the basis of their own
contributions - which are (in all cases that i know of) duly reviewed by
responsible parties.
Strange as this may seem, the fact is that it works quite well (witness
the phenomenal maturation rate of Zope as a web content management
platform - astonishing in light of the relatively meagre finances [and
labor pool - nothing like the Netscape bullpen available in that camp]
of the platform vendor). I have no theory of cause about this, tho i
suspect it's got something to do with the "eating your own dogfood"
dynamic (the Zope community is into this all the way), and the fact that
most of us dogs are too smart to s#%t where we eat. This is why "The
WikiWay" (wiki being the warp-and-woof of content generation over at
zope.org) works so well, in even the most unlikely contexts (e.g.
wikipedia.org). </shameless wiki-boosterism ;->.
Anyway, Fabian, thanks for explaining the workflow (if indeed we can
call process of members publishing only to themselves "workflow"); i
thought the rubber-room sensation it gave me was due to some problem on
my end, and it's nice to know that this was in fact the intention :-) I
respect whatever processes have yielded such excellent product, and will
do my best to understand and contribute appropriately.
And i *will* email you my detailed feedback about moz.zope.org site from
public & member perspectives, once i finish evaluation of same - and you
can consider my request for contributor status on that basis. Namaste,
|/|/alt
Fabian Guisset wrote:
> Walt Ludwick wrote:
>
>> Fabian Guisset wrote:
>> ...
>
>
>>
>>> What's already there:
>>> - The Zope server fully configured
>>> - The framework to add/edit content (still needs some tweaking)
>>> - The workflow (i.e. permissions and privileges)
>>> - The URI structure
>>
>>
>>
>> W/r/t your points 1 and 4: i don't doubt it.
>>
>> W/r/t point three, i have to say: if the basic workflow is what's
>> implemented, then i don't get it. Within the realm of "my stuff,"
>> i've created a few objects (two news items, and a mod. to my default
>> index page), but can't publish them: When i select the items and
>> command "publish", i get a response of "No workflow provides the
>> "publish" action." And, while i can view the list of members (only
>> when logged in, but not when anonymous - as it should be, IMO), i
>> cannot see anybody else's stuff; i have clicked on several users'
>> names (e.g. yourself, Gervase, random others), and i get only an
>> authentication screen, which does not allow me to pass (FYI: my
>> username is "wludwick"), i get the "unauthorized" error msg in
>> response ("You are not allowed to access listFolderContents in this
>> context").
>>
> This may come as a surprise, but it is as intended.
> Currently you have the role "Member". What can it do?
> A member can:
> - Create and edit any document in his Member/ folder.
> - Navigate the site
> A member cannot:
> - Publish anything
> - Edit and create anything outside of his Member/ folder.
>
> Think of it: if a Member could publish anything in his Member/ folder,
> there would be tons of people who would be Members of the site just to
> have their own free space on the web! Which is _not_ the point ;-)
> It _might_ be reasonable to allow Members to "submit for review" a
> document in their own folder, but I think it would be a waste of time
> for the reviewers. They would spend enough time as it is reviewing
> content that goes in the "real" mozilla.org.
>
> To do anything worthwhile wrt creating/editing content, you will have to
> be granted the "Contributor" role. A Contributor can edit/create any
> document, then may submit it for review. A Contributor cannot publish
> anything outside of his own Member/ folder without a "Reviewer" approval.
>
> The workflow also allows us to hand the ownership of a particular folder
> to a Member, which would then become the "Owner" of that folder. (e.g.
> give the ownership of /contribute/quality to Gerv ;-)
>
> Finally there is the Manager role, which gives the full privileges to
> edit all the aspects of the site.
>
> I think that, in time, all the Members who contribute content to the
> site will be given the Contributor role. There is no point in giving
> more privileges to Members, most of which we have never heard of before,
> and might do unwanted things.
>
> This said, if you want to experiment with the site and add some content,
> drop me a mail and we'll see together what is possible (i.e. giving you
> the Contributor role) :-)
>
>
>> W/r/t your point 2: True enough that there *is* a framework for
>> adding/ editing content - and it *does* need "some tweaking." I've
>> already got several pages of notes on tweaks that appear to me as
>> necessary, on the basis of my own quite superficial experience with
>> the app thus far. But, in light of the last pgph, i'm wondering how
>> i'm supposed to share this stuff in context (or as close to it as
>> possible)? Am i to post such minutae to this list? Or rather, in the
>> "eat your own dogfood" spirit (a concept that mozilla.org has done
>> much to propegate; i for one have certainly drunk the kool-aid), would
>> it not be better to get workflow enabled at moz.zope.org to facilitate
>> such sharing? |/|/
>>
> Yes we'd be interested to see that list :-)
> I'm sure the Zope developer will be glad as well :-)
>
>>
>>> What still needs to be done:
>>> - The layout (template + css + python scripts)
>>> - Add more content
>>
>>
>>
>> Amen on both counts. I want to help on both these scores, but i think
>> that a certain amount of action on the latter score must precede
>> constructive work on the former - which obviously can't happen until
>> these workflow problems are ironed out. I for one would much rather
>> see crude-but-effective at this point, rather than
>> pretty-but-useless. To invoke a quote that's become axiomatic in CMS
>> circles "It's about the content, stupid!" :-) |/|/
>>
>
> Agreed. However, as I said before, we don't want to get too much content
> on the new site too soon for three reasons:
>
> 1) A demo does not require that many docs to be migrated. Just enough to
> show the navigation side of the site.
> 2) If mozilla.org refuses the project, I want the wasted time to be as
> small as possible.
> 3) Documents are still modified on mozilla.org as we speak, so the
> moz.zope.org version of those docs are quickly out-of-date. The more
> content we migrate, the more work we have to do to maintain them.
>
>
