[LGM] The LGM website

[Louis Desjardins]

2014/1/17 Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoudine at gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, ale rimoldi wrote:
>
> > if you think WP should be used by the LGM, i think that the best is that
> you
> > submit a proposal telling the LGMers which needs it fulfills and why we
> > should choose it.
>
> This is so utterly, utterly wrong that I don't even know where to
> begin explaining...
>
> No, I don't think that WP should absolutely be used for LGM. It might
> very well be the case that it really isn't suited for LGM. But I don't
> know that, and do you know why?
>
> Because in the very beginning I asked you: "Is there a list of issues
> with WP to look at and discuss in a productive manner?". To which the
> reply consisted of a bunch of assumptions, expressions of frustration
> etc.
>
> Frankly, I'm puzzled. Is this thread about finding solutions, or is it
> a place to let the steam off?
>
> The right way to approach the topic of a CMS choice is simply writing down:
>
> 1) What tasks we need to achieve.
> 2) What the (imaginary) shortest way to do that is (w/o references to
> any CMS), i.e. what the best workflow in each case is.
> 3) How bits of a CMS should work to make this workflow happen.
>
> Then it is possible to really see if the current WP setup is a valid
> choice, whether WP is a valid choice at all, or whether it's possible
> to do better.
>

… and I could add, do better at what cost?

>
> If we don't do that, we will end up arguing about RoR, Jekyll, WP, and
> all sorts of possibilities without making any real changes.
>

I agree. With the crowd of computer-genious we are (ok, except me, only an
OWANCS!), it’s in fact very likely there will always be something to argue
about. The pros and cons of each tool could be discussed days and nights
all year round! We want to be practical, do we?

>
> So could we please get back to a productive discussion?
>

+1

We have picked WP a few years ago and there was a consensus. I am perfectly
comfortable at reviewing this decision from time to time (with the
possibility of keeping and improving what we have, or change it to
something else). I would like that it’d be done in a positive perspective
as to improve what we have and not start the discussion by the (too) usual
"the problem with the website is...".

In order to achieve that we need to know what *does work* as well as what
*should be improved* and what *does not work* and we also need to see that
from the short, mid and long term perspective.

And we need to know that from the perspective of the technical admin, the
editorial admins as well as the users.

The question of the server itself was raised and this too should be
addressed.

We need a slot in the LGM program for this. Can we make sure it’s in? Ale,
do you take that in charge?

I am ready to participate!

Louis



Louis

>
> Alexandre
> _______________________________________________
> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20140117/1e9ebf41/attachment.html>