> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com]
> Sent: 09 June 2005 22:21
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Proposal for building knowledgebase website.
>
> Dave,
>
> > Using an existing CMS (which, every time anyone
> > investigated them in the past we found were not suitable
> for one reason
> > or another)
>
> You, Robert and Alexey found them deficient. I'm not sure
> everyone else
> agreed.
Various people have looked at different options in the past and no-one
has yet to find one that was suitable.
> Further, this is TechDocs we're talking about ...
> and we'd *always*
> talked about using a CMS for it. Lack of accessability is
> what has killed
> the old TechDocs. How many submissions have there been to
> TechDocs in the
> last year? Maybe 4?
You really think that's because people would rather markup their text in
a language that they may not already know and hit Submit themselves
rather than just email it to us?
It's not lack of accessability that killed the old techdocs anyway imho
- it's lack of a maintainer with enough time and interest to put the
work in since Justin left. That's exactly what may happen again if
yet-another-different-site is produced. If it's all in one place, you
have the advantage of an existing infrastructure, and multiple
maintainers who know the system well. Besides, I'm not advocating an
inaccessible replacement - I'm advocating one that fits in with all the
rest of the work that's been done over the last year+.
> > Besides, the guts of a CMS are not that difficult to build
> - we don't
> > need any of the complex features most offer, except a simple markup
> > language. I can say that with confidence having written
> most of a simple
> > custom CMS at work over the last 2 weeks.
>
> Well, count me out then. Maybe I'll open up
> powerpostgresql.com so that
> others can have an *easy-to-use* place to contribute articles ...
Count you out why? Is it the fact that I'm advocating keeping everything
in one site, or that I'm suggesting we don't need advanced features like
customisable workflows or other whizz-bang features? What exactly do you
want that you don't think you will get from what I'm suggesting?
Regards, Dave.
