Re: CMS choice - Zikula is the new Fedora CMS
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:07:11PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
Inline reply
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Jared Smith <jaredsmith(a)jaredsmith.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 11:32 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> Which brings me to the question - why are we languishing when it comes
>> to making this decision?
>
> Because I don't feel we haven't fully been able to articulate our
> reasons for wanting a CMS, and I think it would be premature to choose
> one particular CMS before deciding if *any* CMS is the proper solution.
Well I have two responses - how did we get to this stage of things
without articulating why we need the CMS. I think this goes back to
our scope issue more than anything. A CMS is a great tool for the
Packaging and Legal docs that are currently held on the wiki. And
based on the conversations in IRC it sounds like we want to use it as
a publishing platform. - ie - take the publican generated output of
DocBook and make pushing all of it up easier.
Yes, the primary purpose is as a publishing platform. The current
tools for doing that, which are highly manual, arcane, and require a
lot more skills, don't allow additional people to participate.
Keeping essential documents that are ACL-controlled on the wiki is the
other major point. That's incongruous with the nature of the wiki,
and causes our admins additional work to tack on those controls. If
those documents need to be protected, let them exist on a controlled
platform, and we can give the people maintaining them all the access
they need.
Anything else we can get on top of that is gravy -- good gravy to be
sure, but not good enough to block moving forward.
Just my $0.02.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)