Aaagh! Re: [Clipart] new site design in progress

[Bryce Harrington]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> After you said this, I poked around and discovered that Submit
> Screenshot and Review Incoming don't work.  Review Incoming should
> probably be commented out until we get something for adding keywords
> working, or the DMS in place, or something, at which point we can put
> it back and make it useful.

I put in some thought into how the DMS should handle things like this
over the past few days:

> Submit Screenshot is something I might be able to make work, if I get
> a little time this week.  Some questions, though...
> 
>  * Do we want to put submitted screenshots into use immediately, or
>    have someone review them and move them over by hand?

The DMS will include a simple workflow process.  All submissions
(images, screenshots, template documents, whatever) will be accepted
into the DMS and assigned state UNREVIEWED.  

Reviewers will check the incoming queue and set the state of acceptable
submissions to ACCEPTED.  Ones that are not will be given state
REJECTED, with a summary of the resolution.  Ones that are questionable,
are broken, or have other issues will be marked PROBLEMED or something,
and trouble ticket(s) opened on the issue(s) for tracking as the
submitter works on addressing them.  

Submissions which become irrelevant are marked OBSOLETED.

Only items which are in state ACCEPTED will be visible in the normal
output from the DMS.  They can be indexed for searching, operated on by
extension tools (such as thumbnail generators, metadata-checkers, etc.),
and exported into various kinds of packages.  Items in other states,
however, are omitted.

>  * Do we want to require screenshots to be placed into the Public
>    Domain and have metadata, or is it enough that they are submitted
>    for our use on the website?

Hmm, they should be covered under a license which is compatible with the
website's license.  But that brings up an interesting question - what is
the website's licensing condition?  I set up the website originally (and
it's originally derived from the Inkscape website, which I also was
involved with setting up), but I don't think we ever explicitly stated
its license.  The intent was for it to be GPL'd though.  Anyone else
have thoughts on this?

>  * Do we want to require the submitter to upload also a reduced
>    267x200 preview version at the same time, or should we generate
>    them automatically?  (I think there's a recipe in this Perl
>    Cookbook for that using Image::Magick...)

We can generate them automatically, and probably should. 

For the DMS, what I am thinking of doing is allowing hooks to run tools
on the images.  These tools could include validator tests, thumbnailers,
and other such things.  These tools would be re-run for each new or
changed document in it (thus keeping everything up to date but avoiding
massive re-processing at each release).  If we wish to store multiple
thumbnails at different sizes or something, we could do so using this
method.  During package production, the preferred thumbnail (or none)
could be pulled from it.

Bryce