CVS is part of the problem, but I don't think it's the biggest part. Although I've only been around for a short part of the history of it, the problem seems to me to be that the website is managed by hundreds of different people, most of whom have long since gone away, and nobody has both the authority and the time to do anything about it. Each change has to be accompanied by attempts to track down people that don't communicate and/or don't exist, and usually a group debate on the merits of the changes are, who the audience is supposed to be, whose content is best, what the views of someone that isn't communicating might be, and the fact that the system doesn't work and wouldn't Zope have been good. We also seem to have a large number of people keen to contribute to meta discussion and technical tweaking, and a small number of people actually willing and able to write content.
Bulls-eye.
When jwz was editor-in-chief and initial creator of www.mozilla.org in 1998, things didn't suck. People with less attention to detail then let the hierarchy erode, checked in files named by StudlyCaps instead of hyphenated-words, and otherwise made incoherent changes (incoherent in large and small ways). Too many cooks.
And you're absolutely right that there are always at least ten times as many people willing to tweak than to do the initial heavy lifting. And probably 100 times as many people willing to spout off without carrying weight ;-).
So again: I'm looking for volunteers to be editor-in-chief. I expect DevMo's editor-in-chief to rule with an iron fist, in a velvet glove.
/be _______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
