DevHome Future (was Re: [ZWeb] FYI: Back to the past)

[Sidnei da Silva]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:57:59AM -0700, Jeffrey P Shell wrote:
| I'm especially interested in reigning in the Projects/Fishbowl area 
| into something truely usable.  I've been trying to keep the Zope 2.6 
| and 2.7 project wikis up to date as I spot information that should go 
| in them, even though I'm not involved with the actual projects much, in 
| an effort to make the project area more trustworthy (ie - so people 
| curious about the status of Zope 2.6.xbx and when a final release is 
| due might actually find that information, if it exists at all;).

You rock! Thats exactly the kind of commitment I was looking for. 

| Are there any plans for revamping the Fishbowl?  I'd like to see the 
| proposals page(s) move away from being a wiki.  I think that Proposal 
| can be a specialized CMF Document, with the ability to comment (since a 
| proposal is also, essentially, a request for comments).  They would 
| have a different workflow (ie "Technical Review State", "Awaiting 
| Resources State") similar to the ad-hoc wikibadges used now, but with 
| more meaning and (hopefully) greater enforcement.  Proposals might have 
| extra meta/header data similar to PEP's (ie - expected zope version, 
| "replaces", etc).  Local Roles or other permission settings can be used 
| to allow a degree of collaboration that the proposal's author is 
| comfortable with.  I think this will yield a fishbowl that is easier to 
| keep clean, again giving it some degree of trust.
|
| For proposals which are accepted and become a part of the Zope core, or 
| are other types of ongoing Zope related projects (like ZODB), we could 
| continue with the model we have now where a Project is essentially 
| given a Wiki, collector, or whatever the project leader is comfortable 
| with using for collaboration during the lifetime of the project.  I 
| imagine many accepted proposals won't require becoming projects, and 
| that Projects will tend to be large-scale things to collaborate Zope 
| releases or site rebuilds :).  Projects may even elect to maintain 
| their own proposals within the scope of that project.

I agree with this. Having a separate content type for Proposals is
something that would be highly useful in my opinion inside the
Fishbowl. Another idea would be to make wikis have workflow, but thats
another issue.

I think that the old Zope.org Collaboration Enhancement Proposal
suggested something in this model. Its out of my scope for NZO
though. That doesnt mean it cant be added later, and I would be glad
to volunteer on creating this.
 
| Comments relating to the latest designs follow:
| 
| On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 06:51  AM, Paul Everitt wrote:
| 
| >
| >Howdy.  Sidnei and I were on IRC a while today, going through some of 
| >the points brought up so far.
| >
| >Sidnei found the old home page we had done, which included a lot of 
| >the results from the IA (information architecture) discussion.  He 
| >also found the search results page I had done, which had the Google 
| >look.
| >
| >Take another look at:
| >
| >  http://dev.nzo.zope.org/
| >
| >First, be patient, as some things are quite broken.  So for now, 
| >please don't mention the broken things.  But some things to consider:
| >
| >1) The multi-column layout that George mentioned.
| >
| >2) Specifically, the time-sensitive, always-fresh stuff scrolling 
| >through on the right.
| >
| 
| This column needs to stand out differently.  Right now, the page is 
| really hard to read because there are a lot of boxes, and a lot of 
| black text on white (which generally, I like, but as of Feb 20 11:43 am 
| MST, my eyes just swirl around the page, unable to focus.  Rules of 
| composition!).
|
| The www.zope.ch page has nicer boundaries and is easier to read (even 
| though I don't understand the language).  The difference is subtle, but 
| could end up being quite significant.  (UPDATE: This seems to be due to 
| Plone's "editing box" that shows up around content when logged in.  The 
| lines that it puts on the page around the content section seem to be 
| the worst offender of the page composition problems.  When they're 
| gone, the columns look a *little* more natural.  Better boundaries 
| still need to be put on the right hand side, and/or the really long 
| left-hand column needs to shed some weight.)

That can be fixed yes. Ill look at it as soon as I finish writing some
tests for CMFTypes (sigh!)

| >3) Under "Info for", our attempt to say to people, "If you are one of 
| >the following audiences, start here."
| 
| Good idea - I'd make the "New Users", "Product Developers", etc links 
| stand out a bit more, either by being bold and/or a bit larger.  Or 
| more padding between the cells might be needed.

I would add also that theres too much thing concentrated on a very
small space here. More spacing between columns and lines would help.

[]'s
-- 
Sidnei da Silva (dreamcatcher) <sidnei@x3ng.com.br>
X3ng Web Technology <http://www.x3ng.com.br>
GNU/Linux user 257852
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (Sid) 2.4.18 ppc

You might have mail.