Previously Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude@gmx.net> wrote:
- "Projects" gives an explanation of how the different Zope projects fit together (Zope 2, Zope 3, Grok, CMF, ZODB). Each is then given a subfolder that contains a standard structure: A front page that explains the project in more detail, "Get" (downloads), "Taste" (as above, but for a particular project) and "Learn". The "Learn" section should contain relevant, up-to-date documentation.
No!
Each project should have it's own site. Like Grok has today. The Projects page which explains what they are and how they fit together is fine, but the different subparts will necessarily have to be maintained by slightly different people with slightly different requirements.
We can set up rules so that both zope.org/Projects/grok and grok.zope.org point to the same physical place, but it is extremely important that we do not, once again, try to make a monolithic zope.org.
Microsites, microsites, microsites!
I disagree. Very much. Note that we are not forcing everyone to use this new site; it is perfectly possible for projects to setup their own site. There are disadvantages to that that should be considered: you loose the consistency of a central site with a consistent structure, you loose the consistent image & styling and possibly make it harder for people to find something. For grok it does work since it has people actively making sure it has an excellent user experience. But where is the ZODB site? The Zope2 site? The Zope3 site? The CMF site? None of those have their own site (there are some user-unfriendly wikis but I would not call those sites) and we should not be asking them to make one. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.