Re: [exim-dev] Talking point - websites, wikis and documenta…

Hello,

Sam Michaels schrieb:
> Let's step back and list what needs to be accomplished:
> 1) PROTECTED documentation that is not to be changed, most likely
> created from the DocBook file Philip hands out for each version
> 2) A way for exim users to offer commentary
> 3) An easy way for mirrors to rsync
[..]
> I just feel that wiki is not the answer here...we're creating
> documentation with comments, not an all-editable encylopedia.

Agreed, though we might consider doing it twofold: offering to
create an easily mirrorable "core" version, including whatever
becomes the successor of the current basic and documentation pages.
Alternatively, and probably by requireing additional effort on the
mirror site such as special server config, SQLite or whatever, there
could be an option to mirror the "complete" site.

Did, in the meantime, any mirror admin give feedback? I could
imagine that some of them would not like the idea of mirroring a
site that is in part dynamically changeable from the Internet. We
have all seen too many "cheap phentermine, r@pe pix,..." dirtied
guestbooks and other open comment systems already, haven't we?

Offering a static portion of the site to mirror would therefore not
only make it easier to decide for becoming a mirror (on whatever
part of the globe), but it could also help to move forward the
discussion on how to realize the dynamic part of the new site by
making the dependency for mirroring more or less obsolete.

Catching up on Philips thoughts regarding those regions that are
unfortunately still suffering[1] from weak information
infrastructure - for them, static content would be easier cacheable.


Well, Sam in my opinion has helped a great deal in summarizing pros
and cons. In the end I guess it will all boil down to what weight is
given to those points (probably mostly by Nigel and Philip), though.

@Nigel/Philip: is there anything you require folks to
agree/deny/comment on in order to influence your own weight of
arguments? S/th like "I will volunteer to 'maintain' section x of a
wiki" or "I will contribute a bunch of hours PHP programming"?

Another idea might be to set up a web-based questionnaire in order
to get a true picture of what parts and features are more crucial
than others - maybe the lion share of most frequent website users
aren't even on the lists! What if, for example, say 4% state
interest in being able to add comments and 98% vote for a
lynx-readable options reference?

Collecting a large amount of reliable data is always a good basis to
start from :) A quick freshmeat search yielded socrates-qe but there
may be something smaller out there.

Sorry for raising a new sub-topic whith that last point but it has
the potential of significantly increasing overall quality.

My $0.02

Kind regards,
vt


1: Don't flame me on that wording -I know if that's the only thing
they would suffer from, our planet would be a much better place. I'm
just narrowing the view on the topic here.