Andrew Sawyers wrote:
> In the future, zope.org (will) migrate easily. Before I left ZC, I went
> into the plone channel asking for assistance, and when it was learned
> the version of Plone we were on, there was little encouragement for any
> sensible migration. That said, it doesn't matter today. Today zope.org
> sucks and we're working to fix that.
Which version was it, do you remember?
> zope.org shouldn't have membership - people should not be able to dump
> crap on it which can easily bit-rot. That said, there should be a site
> for people to use as a sandbox or playground, but where the 'front site'
> for the technology comes in, it should be limited in scope to promoting
> the software, providing excellent docs, software (zope.org CVS only) and
> promoting the Zope Vision. Anything that does not directly contribute
> to this is not necessary and should go.
Probably sensible. That said, we've had a lot of success on plone.org by
letting people have accounts (but no member folder) so that they can
contribute products (plone.org/products) and documentation
(plone.org/documentation), that goes through a light review cycle before
being published. The Plone products that drive this also help maintain that
documentation e.g. by letting us mark things as outdated, by marking things
for different audiences/sections etc.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.
Zope-web maillist - Zopefirstname.lastname@example.org