On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 07:06 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> 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 documentation e.g. by letting us mark things as outdated, by marking things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.
I don't think the bar should be high to contribute, but and I presume my
goal would be met by not allowing members folders. Early on, my goal
was to reduce kruft and bit-rot content which people could throw on and
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.
> Zope-web maillist - Zopeemail@example.com
Zope-web maillist - Zopefirstname.lastname@example.org