[ZWeb] Front Page & Other Changes

[Chris Withers]

Ken Manheimer wrote:
> I think there's some increasing misunderstanding about the point of the IRC
> communication.
> 
> I thought the idea is to use IRC is for collision avoidance.  When you're
> actually doing some management activity on zope.org, first log into IRC and
> let others there know where you're heading.  Then, keep an eye on the IRC
> session while you're working.  If everyone does this, then you'll be able
> to notice each other and, well, avoid colliding.  (Ack, nack - rts?  Cts.
> Dtr xoff!  Xon, dsr.  Ten-four, rover, out and over. :)

Yep, that's the idea, however I don't see any harm in having realtime 
discussions there about zope.org too. Maybe the channel should be logged 
somewhere, then people who work offline could catch up?

> There's no need to restrict discussions about ideas and design choices to
> real-time.  Use a mailling list, and give a chance for people who've
> invested time and energy to participate.

I'm not talking about restricting anything, I think both should be used 
to full effect.

>>How about just hard graft editing of the two main books already there and
>>that are already structured, along with a simplification rather than
>>re-complification of the documentation structure!
> 
> What the *fuck* do you think "simplification" is, chris?  

To quote Simon Michael "[07:22] <sm> did ken manheimer just say fuck ?"
I thought swearing on mailing lists was my job *schniff* ;-)

> Are only your own
> ideas about reorganizing worth considering, all others being too
> complicated?

Of course not, my point is that lots of thinking has already been done, 
and I think the structure of Zope.org is just fine, although a few 
category pages could be pruned out. I think the main work needs to be 
removal of cruft and editing and updating of content...

> I hear you objecting to overwrought and overambitious designs, and think
> that's a wise caution which we should all take to heart.  

Good :-)

> I also hear you
> dismissing several people's requests to stop taking unilateral action, and
> i think that's unwise disregard for other people's concerns and insight.

I'm not. You'll notice the only changes I've actually made are a slight 
re-organisation of the front page such that some important dynamic areas 
and links are visible without having to scroll, and the deletion of a 
section which had "please delete me" written on the top of it.
Everything else has been nice active discussion which I'm enjoying 
participating in :-)

> So i guess i'm asking you to reconsider people's requests to make a draft
> of a page before putting it in place, particularly if it's a relatively
> prominent page, like say the home page of the site.  You don't have to give
> a long time for review, but you *do* have to see what you can do to
> entertain objections and try to coordinate with others who are also
> contributing.  

Well, I did actually do all of the above...
1. I proposed the changes to this list, with a "please comment now and 
don't just whine later" ending
2. I did a a mockup, and showed it to as many people as I could in the 
time I had.
3. I coped the mockup into the live version.

Now, as far as I know, there have been no objections to any of the 
changes I've actually made...

>>Why not? We are all sensible and responsible adults. I don't think any of
>>us would do anything unreasonable, and if people felt that we had, I'm sure
>>none of us would have a problem undoing the changes and having further
>>discussion...
> 
> On the one hand you're suggesting that people in this group just make the
> changes they want, and on the other you're (elsewhere) saying you disagree
> with other people's choices - eg, including ZopeMag among the zope exits.

Apologies, let me clarify. I think all the people who can make changes 
as I did have the judgement to know when a change is likely to be 
contentious. If it is, it gets discussed here first, as the "Zope Exits" 
saga has been. If not, then make the changes and be prepared to back 
them out if people whine reasonably or overwhelmingly...

> If the expense of your contributions is the disruption of other's
> good-faith attempts to contribute, then consider this a negative comment.

I don't see any disruption, so I'll take it as a neutral comment ;-)

> "Envision Whirled Peas"

pea soup?

cheers,

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk