Resigning [was: Website Proposal [Was TWiki status]
jeremy at jenacon.net
Thu Dec 9 04:13:52 PST 2004
Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> It's nice, simple and clean. It also lacks all the functions of the
> current site, except the most basic. I'm not sure if it's a good idea
> to start from scratch, or try to simplify the current site, if that is
> the goal. If you think that this stands a better chance of being
> manageable and being accepted, please put it forward. It still misses
> a lot of content, so it will still be a challenge to keep it simple,
> no matter the design. Good information architecture is still necessary
> to keep things from growing out of control, especially if you want to
> keep coding by hand.
Thank you. And, yes, I agree it would be a challenge.
> Anyway, effective immediately (and not without some pain), I'll resign
> from the website team and from the FAQ. I'd have been happy to work
> out a manageable solution if I'd been given the time, but it seems I'm
> surpassed, so it's time to pass the torch on. Like I said, I simply
> lack the time to invest in other solutions, other then what we've
> already put forward.
Jeroen, I certainly did not intend for this. I would have been happy
just to see you become more active again. I respect you a lot for the
work that you have done and the hours you have devoted to the LFS
community. I definitely think *something* needed to be done, because
website development has been stagnating, but it didn't have to mean your
abandoning the project completely.
> Our choice for TWiki was certainly justifiable, since the basic idea
> was to put the content control into the project members' hands, but
> the lack of community backing has stagnated the efforts. It also aimed
> for a much simpler design and information architecture, yet scalable
> enough to let projects grow incrementally without much management
> needed. The only fault it had was the word "wiki" in it, despite that
> we aimed for a completely closed wiki.
Yes. And I enjoyed working with TWiki. It *still* would offer an
interesting solution to many of the website's current faults. My only
reason for doing this test site was to see if the community as a whole
favored this type of a solution because of the fact that I've heard so
many complaints about the TWiki from several sources. As I said before,
just setting forth another option.
> Most of the complexity of the current site comes from it being based on
> stand-alone HTML files and integrating a lot of other repository-driven
> systems, like the hints, patches and book renderings. Also, it
> incorporates a lot of dynamic elements, like the news system and SVN
> commit messages. You're bound to run into some of the same problems as
> Anderson and I did, unless you want to give up on some of the
> functions the website currently performs. Also, running from a script
> will be inevitable to glue certain things together, such as book
> renderings, hints and patches.
> I know the design I built was, at the time, a great succes, fullfilled
> many needs and reflected the community spirit from that time. It
> externalized the dynamic community which the old site hid so well, and
> the TWiki site would explore this idea even further. It was welcomed
> by almost everyone in the community. Alas, the community has changed,
> and so have I. If people feel that it's time to put something and
> someone else forward, please do so; I lack the time and the energy to
> defend myself against community members who don't really want me in
> this place.
Jeroen, I *do* want you in this place. It always pains me to see someone
with talent and a love for LFS leave the project. Even if you feel as
Kevin did, that you no longer have the time to do justice to the role of
Website and FAQ leader, could you not stay on as a contributor or Team
Member? I'm very sorry if my post offended you. It was not meant that
way. There are many things I see that need improved on the website
front, and I was anxious to see them acted upon.
More information about the website