Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:
> Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. But, Plone has proved itself to > require more maintenance than its predecessor. You mean Plone has, or the way that Plone was put in place has? > I've changed my opinion on this over the last year to be inline with > Jens and Andrew: dump the lot, start again... Or at least section it off to e.g. old.zope.org and lock that down. > > * The site should be built largely with off-the-shelf components. > > Not even. It should be absolute positively minimal, fully documented and > _everything_ should be svn'ed. Zope.org suffers from having zero people > with time and inclination to maintain it. That's the real problem here. > Last time Plone was touted as the silver bullet for that, and we can see > how well that turned out... So the problem was either Plone itself, or it was the way in which Plone was implemented and customised. > > later would make all of us look better. PloneHelpCenter and > > PloneSoftwareCenter work well now. > > Honestly, flat html files in Apache would probably work better and be > easier to maintain... Depends on whether you want a single person to maintain it (and deal with skin consistency etc.) or if you want to re-invigorate some community involvement. plone.org/products and plone.org/documentation works very well because it provides a well-defined, restricted set of content types that people can contribute with, in a restricted location. If you want to contribute documentation, it's easy to see where you do that, there's a review cycle, there are tools to manage that content. Same with add-on products and modules - it gives you a place to store, promote and manage the code you want to contribute. By making it easy to contribute products and documentation, we've ultimately made Plone a better and more useful system for our users. I don't see why this shouldn't be the same on zope.org. > > * The site should be built with software that is actively maintained > > independently of a zope2.org site. > > I think it should be built off either a default distro of Zope 2 or of > Zope 3. That said, I think Zope 2.9+ covers both those bases... So it's better to build a custom CMS from scratch just for zope.org? The thing that confuses me is that community-oriented sites like zope.org and plone.org, which I hope you'll agree serve very similar purposes, is probably the one use case that Plone handles better than all others, out of the box. plone.org on plone 2.1, on a proper server and with a proper sysadmin now that we have wiggy has been extremely stable, easy to manage and has community-oriented components (the documentation and products sectios in particular) that have re-invigorated community involvement and made Plone more accessible to people more peripheral to the system. I can't see how zope.org needs anything more than plone.org + a custom skin, the type of thing that Plone developers build for their customers every day (and maintain for their customers down the road). And there is a site there at the moment, that works, that proves that the technology works. So why re-invent it? Martin _______________________________________________ Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web