Re: [Zope.org Redux] Re: [Zope-dev] Let's fix the damned website
On 21 Apr 2008, at 11:53 , Martin Aspeli 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!
Does it really matter whether a microsite lives in zope.org/projects/zodb or zodb.zope.org?
If you look at the projects now, they each have a common set of sections - download, examples, documentation - and will be allowed to evolve independently. They also have the option of having some specific branding (logo, tag-line etc) as required.
If anyone steps up and wants to maintain a separate site for one of the projects, then all the better. However, it is hard enough to get contributors as-is, so I'm loth to do anything that increases the maintenance or setup burden in any way until we have at least the basics in place.
I agree with Martin. We need to stop the balkanization of Zope-the- brand. Yes, we have many individual projects, but we need a coherent image to the outside world. Microsites was a good idea to get foundation site and the Grok site up and running *before* tackling zope.org, but in the long run, we need coherence. Also, to be honest, I don't find the design of the new Grok website very attractive. And the foundation site is simple enough to be folded back into the main site.
Martins answer doens't seem to have arrived here, so sorry for the weird quoting:
On 21 Apr 2008, at 11:53 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Does it really matter whether a microsite lives in zope.org/projects/zodb or zodb.zope.org?
As mentioned, no.But it's important that it is it's own site, running it's own version of the software, so that it can be maintained seperately without having to upgrade all of zope.org.
I agree with Martin. We need to stop the balkanization of Zope-the-brand. Yes, we have many individual projects, but we need a coherent image to the outside world. Microsites was a good idea to get foundation site and the Grok site up and running *before* tackling zope.org, but in the long run, we need coherence.
Also, to be honest, I don't find the design of the new Grok website very attractive. And the foundation site is simple enough to be folded back into the main site.
I understand these points, but I repeat one last time: Zope.org has been in dire need of upgrade for more than five years. It got one in the beginning of this, and that produced a zope.org that wasn't very much better, and since then, nothing happened. The main reason for failure is that it is a monolithic gigant. Don't make that mistake again. Please. -- Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting. http://www.colliberty.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Martins answer doens't seem to have arrived here, so sorry for the weird quoting:
On 21 Apr 2008, at 11:53 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Does it really matter whether a microsite lives in zope.org/projects/zodb or zodb.zope.org?
As mentioned, no.But it's important that it is it's own site, running it's own version of the software, so that it can be maintained seperately without having to upgrade all of zope.org.
... or die slowly because no-one has the capacity to maintain it.
I agree with Martin. We need to stop the balkanization of Zope-the-brand. Yes, we have many individual projects, but we need a coherent image to the outside world. Microsites was a good idea to get foundation site and the Grok site up and running *before* tackling zope.org, but in the long run, we need coherence.
Also, to be honest, I don't find the design of the new Grok website very attractive. And the foundation site is simple enough to be folded back into the main site.
I understand these points, but I repeat one last time: Zope.org has been in dire need of upgrade for more than five years. It got one in the beginning of this, and that produced a zope.org that wasn't very much better, and since then, nothing happened. The main reason for failure is that it is a monolithic gigant.
Don't make that mistake again.
Please.
No-one wants a giant site. Also, no-one wants a site with any complex bespoke software behind it. I think we can put this site live when we have about 20 pages of content. Then it can grow if it needs to, but not a lot. If one project really starts generating a ton of stuff and wants to add more functionality to the site, they will posssibly want to spin off a separate site. I don't see that happening any time soon, though, except possibly for Grok. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
participants (3)
-
Lennart Regebro -
Martin Aspeli -
Philipp von Weitershausen