What about extending the wiki...?
Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational
bill at nospam.dot
Sun Mar 14 04:25:52 PST 2004
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational said the following on 03/13/04 20:06:
> > I certainly support phases 1 and 2. To forestall early complaints about
> OK, thanks! :-) Does Gerard know about these plans? Shall I notify him?
Sorry, no *short* answer here, as I have no *authority*. So I can only
give you the reasoning *I* would use. HTH.
I don't know if he knows. As you may be aware, except for a brief
appearance trying to reduce spam, he seems to be AFK again.
My feeling is that either personal issues keep him away, or he has lost
interest, or that he wants to see how things run without him, or he
figures I'll holler when something comes up, or ...? He has not told me
The last post I recall is in the "[RFC] switch from CVS to SVN ?" on
March 7. And not much before that, other than the spam stuff, really.
I've adopted the following attitude.
Whenever he's ready to participate he will. I will not dun him about
the items that he needs to address - that can only be an irritation is
my *guess*. I operate with no explicit *authority* or *responsibility*
and only offer my opinions and suggestions, as in the past. I continue
effort in my area, regardless.
- his acceptance of my suggestion that HLFS be viewed as an "R & D"
effort and that you will be pursuing the website change as such (am
I correct in this now?);
- the fact that it worked out (evidenced by his establishing HLFS as
part of LFS);
- your plans indicate no production change for many months - meaning
he would have plenty of time to see it and take action when he does
get active again;
- you have posted for RFC and done things correctly in pursuit of
such a major change;
- you seem to have support for investigation, and possible
implementation (if all works out as well as you hope), of your
suggestion from those who have responded;
- you *certainly* have authority as website team to investigate such
things *and* implement, after following the usual discussion
- you have support from an Lfs.org team member, even though that
implies no *authority*, to pursue the investigation, under the
conditions that we have discussed;
- his lack of substantial participation recently indicates that he has
(for whatever reason) no need to be heavily involved;
I would say there should not be a need to post him privately.
Also, in the general view, what you propose is really no more than
another CMS, such as Drupal, that you were investigating before this.
This assessment is based on the fact that both allow update by any
authorized person, IIUC. You are only investigating extending the
number of such authorized folks substantially using a different tool
that makes it easier for folks to accomplish the tasks.
The *potential* benefits justify investigation, IMO.
As a reminder, before you open the test up for general comment, be sure
you have some of those issues we touched upon *mentioned* and certain
others *handled*. This should decrease resistance to the change.
When you RFC to the other lists, I would like to know that updates are
restricted for: org docs, myself (and who else?); mission statements,
team leaders (and or their members if the team leader so desires); other
"core" items, as appropriate.
> > OT: I would like to see org docs and mission statements published before
> > this effort sucks all your available time. My reasons should be obvious,
> Will do. I'll put them all under one heading, which may be sub-optimal.
> The current website will still be maintained, but I won't be making
> rigorous changes.
But we will still have content updates, right? News postings, and such,
Use fixed above line to mail me direct
More information about the website