On Friday, Apr 25, 2003, at 12:36 US/Central, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 12:54, Scott Lamb wrote:
>> I have to agree with this. I just don't understand why the websites
>> are
>> developed so differently from source code. In fact, I just don't
>> really
>> understand how people get involved in improving the website when
>> there's not even a public mailing list. I've complained about problems
>> with the website before and offered to help fix them, in whatever
>> other
>> mailing list it's spilled over to. I don't have the time to
>> consistently pump stuff out...but that's never a problem in source
>> projects. I can contribute a patch, wander off, contribute another,
>> and
>> my contributions are still welcome. I'd really like to see all the
>> websites in the same place, with a publically accessible repository,
>> with commit emails, with public mailing lists. Developed like a source
>> code project. Can Bricolage (or whatever CMS system you're leaning
>> toward now) do that?
>>
>
> This is not a technical problem, it is a management problem.
It's both, I think. The software that gets picked facilitates different
ways of working. I'd like to make sure that something is picked that
allows people to contribute without being part of the core group. I
don't really care if that means they have to learn how to use it,
especially when I just don't see the difficulty and I do see the value
in learning it for a million other reasons also.
Scott Lamb
