Walt Ludwick wrote:
> Fabian: You are right, the workflow design you describe below is
> 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
>
>
A last detail: I did not set up the workflow, Alan Runyan did, I believe
(he's one of the authors of the Plone skin for Zope). I just thought it
made sense.
I guess we will have to check with mozilla.org if they agree with the
Zope way ("anyone that takes the minimal step of self-registering for a
free account does gain thereby their own website").
Since I am not part of mozilla.org, I cannot tell you their position :-P
-Fabian.
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
