Glynn Foster wrote: > > http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2008/03/16/thoughts-on-a-probable-opensolariscom/
---------- The OpenSolaris web infrastructure has not been without problems, however, as most of the tonic web team will attest - issues with shoe-horning in projects infrastructure and source code management systems, re-writing the authentication systems, a new grants and election poll sub-system, the infamous jive-mailman bridge, planet aggregators, bugzilla defect management systems and a whole host of other headaches. It’s a testament to the web team, both past and present, to have what we have. And with all its faults, it does a pretty amazing job, with some great content there. But rarely do we provide the opportunity for the non-contributing user to download binaries and run them, find out about exciting technology that is available to them, and help spread the word about OpenSolaris. opensolaris.org just isn’t that kind of site, to some extent, and I think we can do better. ---------- That paragraph is largely incorrect in content, and paints a bleaker picture than is reality. We haven't been "shoe horning" anything in, the SCM system and the poll system are actually separate web applications from the current portal site, although they do share a common database. The poll system was used successfully to run last year's election, and will be used again for this year's. The bugzilla defect system is also a separate application. The authentication system rewrite is being done precisely so we *can*, if required, provide multiple web "properties" under the wider opensolaris banner. I can't therefore understand how it is it a "problem" that we are already doing something that will make what you suggest possible. You list 26 items as being potential content for opensolaris.com, of those I could only find perhaps 2 that aren't already provided in some form or other by opensolaris.org or by bigadmin.com. We can discuss the adequacy of the current provision, but that is different from saying that we don't provide such content at the moment. I think you are conflating two distinct discussions - a discussion about improvements to the current website, and a discussion about segmenting the opensolaris community into different constituencies - developer, evangelist, user and so forth. The need for improvements to the current opensolaris.org website is already accepted. The need for segmenting the community is open to discussion, and I think that discussion needs to take place first before deciding the consequences of any such split on the web infrastructure. If the decision is that we need distinct web properties for different purposes, we can certainly do that. In that case I think we would need to start with an accurate appraisal of what we currently have and where it can be found. We can then move on to discuss what needs to be added, what needs to be removed and what needs to be moved. A list that includes most of the stuff we already have whilst simultaneously suggesting that it doesn't already exist doesn't seem to be a particularly good starting point to me. -- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
