On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. Very much. Note that we are not forcing everyone to use this
> new site; it is perfectly possible for projects to setup their own site.
And in that case we end up with two sites, one on Zope.org, and it's
own, as with Grok. That is very bad.
> There are disadvantages to that that should be considered: you loose the
> consistency of a central site with a consistent structure, you loose the
> consistent image & styling and possibly make it harder for people to
> find something.
Nothing prevents us from having consistent styling and consistent
structure between the different microsites, and also, having it all on
zope.org doesn't mean that we have consistent structure either.
> For grok it does work since it has people actively
> making sure it has an excellent user experience. But where is the ZODB
> site? The Zope2 site? The Zope3 site? The CMF site?
No. Is there a zope.org for these? No, not really. Microsites makes it
possible to upgrade things one at a time, as necessary, instead of
creating monumental zope.org upgrade projects that ultimately fail in
creating a useful zope.org. We've already tried and failed twice. Lets
learn from that experience.
> None of those have
> their own site (there are some user-unfriendly wikis but I would not
> call those sites) and we should not be asking them to make one.
Why would this be a difference between microsites and not microsites?
As far as I can see it doesn't affect who does it or what they do at
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
+33 661 58 14 64
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -