Thread: Tech Docs and Consultants
Who do I contact about the tech doc pages now?
My entry on the consultants page has disappeared
(not nice) and the commercial support page has gone 404
(link from techdocs home in left column).
And finally, what exactly is the public status of the wiki-ized
tech docs?
If the only solution is to be added to the web mailing list,
can I be added, then?
thanks,
elein@varlena.com
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elein@varlena.com Database Consulting www.varlena.com
I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.
Elein, > Who do I contact about the tech doc pages now? > > My entry on the consultants page has disappeared > (not nice) and the commercial support page has gone 404 > (link from techdocs home in left column). > > And finally, what exactly is the public status of the wiki-ized > tech docs? I don't know; since Justin's troubling announcement on Thursday, he's been incommunicado. I suspect that someone new will need to take over Techdocs, in which case I'll take it and be moving it to Zapatec. Wanna help me port everything? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> I suspect that someone new will need to take over Techdocs, in which > case I'll take it and be moving it to Zapatec. Wanna help me port > everything? All of the *.postgresql.org sites are in one central place, and shall remain there ... if you require any new tools to improve on it, please feel free to ask ... if for you to 'take it over' requires moving it to another hosting provider, then I'll take it over instead so that it doesn't have to move ...
I think Marc is right on this (even if he is a little
gruff about it). Tech Docs should stay with the
other sites. There could be a doc site on zapatec, too,
like Roberto's Cookbook site and my General Bits site,
but I think the base stuff should stay at postgresql.org.
Keeping it at postgresql.org will enable more people to
help out and ideally simplify any turn over.
I can help pull things together and maintain consistency
(as time allows). I really hate to see pages and content
go missing.
Marc and Josh, can we work together on this?
elein
On Saturday 12 April 2003 11:28, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > I suspect that someone new will need to take over Techdocs, in which
> > case I'll take it and be moving it to Zapatec. Wanna help me port
> > everything?
>
> All of the *.postgresql.org sites are in one central place, and shall
> remain there ... if you require any new tools to improve on it, please
> feel free to ask ... if for you to 'take it over' requires moving it to
> another hosting provider, then I'll take it over instead so that it
> doesn't have to move ...
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elein@varlena.com Database Consulting www.varlena.com
I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, elein wrote: > I think Marc is right on this (even if he is a little gruff about it). Sorry, especially to Josh ... long week :( > Marc and Josh, can we work together on this? Josh, from what I could tell on the Zapatec site, it looks like you are looking at a Java Servlet, vs PHP, migration? Would Enhydra, Jakarta-Tomcat or JBoss (is there something else I haven't installed yet?) help you with this?
I am not a programmer, just use what the fine programmers have written- but I am available to help with whatever. Spell checking, reviewing, boring stuff, whatever. Just email me and let me know what you need. John C.
Marc, > Josh, from what I could tell on the Zapatec site, it looks like you are > looking at a Java Servlet, vs PHP, migration? Would Enhydra, > Jakarta-Tomcat or JBoss (is there something else I haven't installed yet?) > help you with this? Sorry, I was too abrupt with that idea. Here's the skinny: I'd like to take over Techdocs. I have several articles which have not been posted due to the current techdocs format (raw HTML) and Justin's unavailibility. And it's the kind of contribution to PostgreSQL I'd like to make. However, I can only reasonably manage Techdocs if it's on a production-ready Content Management System, with simplified page editing, multi-user rights management, and revision history. I have investigated this extensively, and there are *no* production-ready, pure OSS, CMS for PostgreSQL running on PHP or Perl. I was looking at developing one with Andy Chase (based on his "SnapSnap"), but then he got a job and Zapatec announced the launch of Bloki. Zapatec runs on PostgreSQL, are supporters of our community, and have offered to host a PG satellite site for free. They have huge bandwidth as well. And their Bloki service, if it works as advertised (I haven't yet had time to test extensively) should meet the needs of Techdocs almost exactly. Particularly since Dror is likely to be willing to help with customizations. If I try to manage Techdocs on the current platform, I will find myself in exaclty the same place as Justin for most of 2002 ... unable to accept any new content because I have 80 hours of platform upgrade ahead of me. Make more sense, now? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
"Bricolage is a full-featured, open-source content-management and publishing system. Features include intuitive and highly configurable administration, workflow, permissions, templating, server-neutral output, distribution, and document management." David? Would moving techdocs.postgresql.org to Bricolage be something that you would be willing to help with? From my read on the site, the Macworld Magazine Web site (www.macworld.com) is running on Bricolage now, so I'm guessing its 'production ready', and it is OSS ... On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Marc, > > > Josh, from what I could tell on the Zapatec site, it looks like you are > > looking at a Java Servlet, vs PHP, migration? Would Enhydra, > > Jakarta-Tomcat or JBoss (is there something else I haven't installed yet?) > > help you with this? > > Sorry, I was too abrupt with that idea. Here's the skinny: > > I'd like to take over Techdocs. I have several articles which have not been > posted due to the current techdocs format (raw HTML) and Justin's > unavailibility. And it's the kind of contribution to PostgreSQL I'd like to > make. > > However, I can only reasonably manage Techdocs if it's on a production-ready > Content Management System, with simplified page editing, multi-user rights > management, and revision history. I have investigated this extensively, and > there are *no* production-ready, pure OSS, CMS for PostgreSQL running on PHP > or Perl. I was looking at developing one with Andy Chase (based on his > "SnapSnap"), but then he got a job and Zapatec announced the launch of Bloki. > > Zapatec runs on PostgreSQL, are supporters of our community, and have offered > to host a PG satellite site for free. They have huge bandwidth as well. > And their Bloki service, if it works as advertised (I haven't yet had time to > test extensively) should meet the needs of Techdocs almost exactly. > Particularly since Dror is likely to be willing to help with customizations. > > If I try to manage Techdocs on the current platform, I will find myself in > exaclty the same place as Justin for most of 2002 ... unable to accept any > new content because I have 80 hours of platform upgrade ahead of me. > > Make more sense, now? > > -- > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco >
On Saturday, April 12, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> "Bricolage is a full-featured, open-source content-management and
> publishing system. Features include intuitive and highly configurable
> administration, workflow, permissions, templating, server-neutral
> output,
> distribution, and document management."
>
> David? Would moving techdocs.postgresql.org to Bricolage be something
> that you would be willing to help with? From my read on the site, the
> Macworld Magazine Web site (www.macworld.com) is running on Bricolage
> now,
> so I'm guessing its 'production ready', and it is OSS ...
Yes, I could help with that. For the next couple of months, I'll only
have a bit of time here and there, but I'm happy to answer questions,
and such. I'm thinking about setting up a Bricolage BOF at OSCON, too,
and doing a demo there, just so that interested people can get a feel
for it, and to help get them started. I should pop Nat a note about
that...
Anyway, if you want to install it and start playing with it, I'll help
where I can. You might want to wait for 1.6.0 on the 21st, though, as
1.5.2 has a few annoying bugs that I've since fixed.
Regards,
david
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@kineticode.com ICQ: 15726394
Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org
Kineticode. Setting knowledge in motion.[sm]
Josh? Right now, you seem to be willing to step up to the plate ... Will Bricolage work for you, or are you firm set on Zapatec? On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, David Wheeler wrote: > On Saturday, April 12, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > "Bricolage is a full-featured, open-source content-management and > > publishing system. Features include intuitive and highly configurable > > administration, workflow, permissions, templating, server-neutral > > output, > > distribution, and document management." > > > > David? Would moving techdocs.postgresql.org to Bricolage be something > > that you would be willing to help with? From my read on the site, the > > Macworld Magazine Web site (www.macworld.com) is running on Bricolage > > now, > > so I'm guessing its 'production ready', and it is OSS ... > > Yes, I could help with that. For the next couple of months, I'll only > have a bit of time here and there, but I'm happy to answer questions, > and such. I'm thinking about setting up a Bricolage BOF at OSCON, too, > and doing a demo there, just so that interested people can get a feel > for it, and to help get them started. I should pop Nat a note about > that... > > Anyway, if you want to install it and start playing with it, I'll help > where I can. You might want to wait for 1.6.0 on the 21st, though, as > 1.5.2 has a few annoying bugs that I've since fixed. > > Regards, > > > david > > -- > David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory > david@kineticode.com ICQ: 15726394 > Yahoo!: dew7e > Jabber: Theory@jabber.org > Kineticode. Setting knowledge in motion.[sm] > >
On Saturday, April 12, 2003, at 01:58 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Josh? Right now, you seem to be willing to step up to the plate ...
> Will
> Bricolage work for you, or are you firm set on Zapatec?
Zapatec? Seems like rather the wrong hammer for this particular screw.
Just MHO.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@kineticode.com ICQ: 15726394
Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org
Kineticode. Setting knowledge in motion.[sm]
David, Marc, > Josh? Right now, you seem to be willing to step up to the plate ... Will > Bricolage work for you, or are you firm set on Zapatec? > > On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, David Wheeler wrote: > > On Saturday, April 12, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > "Bricolage is a full-featured, open-source content-management and > > > publishing system. Features include intuitive and highly configurable > > > administration, workflow, permissions, templating, server-neutral > > > output, > > > distribution, and document management." Bricolage is fine ... I just always got the impression from you, David, that it is a little heavy-duty for techdocs. We don't, for example, need workflow, server-neutral output, distribution, or document management. Is there a "Bricolage Light"? Now, Bricolage for the *main* postgreSQL.org site .... And I'm not clear on what we're proposing, here, Marc ... is Bricolage something we would install on Hub.org's servers, or would David host the site? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > And I'm not clear on what we're proposing, here, Marc ... is Bricolage > something we would install on Hub.org's servers, or would David host the > site? Its OSS software ... we'd install it in the VM for the rest of the postgresql.org web sites ...
> However, I can only reasonably manage Techdocs if it's on a production-ready > Content Management System, with simplified page editing, multi-user rights > management, and revision history. I have investigated this extensively, and > there are *no* production-ready, pure OSS, CMS for PostgreSQL running on PHP > or Perl. I was looking at developing one with Andy Chase (based on his > "SnapSnap"), but then he got a job and Zapatec announced the launch of Bloki. What's wrong with Bricolage? Chris
Josh Berkus wrote: > Elein, > > >>Who do I contact about the tech doc pages now? >> >>My entry on the consultants page has disappeared >>(not nice) and the commercial support page has gone 404 >>(link from techdocs home in left column). >> >>And finally, what exactly is the public status of the wiki-ized >>tech docs? > > I don't know; since Justin's troubling announcement on Thursday, he's been > incommunicado. Well, I'm been away from the computer all weekend, and when I returned I didn't have an account on any of the postgresql.orgservers. Seems people took my mentioning of withdrawing as being a "don't want to be associated with", which isn't the case. It'sjust that even the smallest tasks to do with PostgreSQL are feeling like chores, and there are other things I want to concentrate on. i.e. Open Source in governments (a growing thing), perhaps looking at creating some more online training stuff, etc. Forthe moment though, I just want to take a break more than anything. :-) > I suspect that someone new will need to take over Techdocs, in which case I'll > take it and be moving it to Zapatec. Wanna help me port everything? Good thing to suspect. We need some way of making it really multi-user, but as much as that's my recommendation, I don'thave the motivation to do the work. Now before *anyone* says what'll be done with the Techdocs site next, please lets think about what the PostgreSQL Communitywill benefit from most as it's next stage of growth. The best _logical_ place for it is on hub.org servers with everything else, but frankly... it generatesextra workload for the guys running those servers so I'd be more interesed in seeing it elsewhere. Still named "techdocs.postgresql.org" if possible (Marc?)but lets take the opportunity to reduce potential workload on Chris/Marc/hub.org/etc and explore other possibilities. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- I should really dig up my old quote again. :)
On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 23:38, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > However, I can only reasonably manage Techdocs if it's on a production-ready > > Content Management System, with simplified page editing, multi-user rights > > management, and revision history. I have investigated this extensively, and > > there are *no* production-ready, pure OSS, CMS for PostgreSQL running on PHP > > or Perl. I was looking at developing one with Andy Chase (based on his > > "SnapSnap"), but then he got a job and Zapatec announced the launch of Bloki. > > What's wrong with Bricolage? > > Chris > Actually I'm still waiting to here what was wrong with the current plan to move the site to the zope/wiki engine... Robert Treat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > However, I can only reasonably manage Techdocs if it's on a production-ready > Content Management System, with simplified page editing, multi-user rights > management, and revision history. Call me a traditionalist, but how about the traditional cvs + "your favorite editor" approach? I don't think the techdocs section changes so often that we need fancy wiki / edit-from-the-web-on-the-fly sort of technology here. I also agree with Marc that there is no need to move it elsewhere right now. Let's just keep it simple, focus on the content, and add other things later. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200304140946 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html iD8DBQE+mrwvvJuQZxSWSsgRAvMtAJ9CrkU1WgOf5SafG8l4aJYJpsWOfACgsCHI C+DCSdHAkMnhFmIu9ctw2dA= =ZhMl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 23:38, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > However, I can only reasonably manage Techdocs if it's on a production-ready > > > Content Management System, with simplified page editing, multi-user rights > > > management, and revision history. I have investigated this extensively, and > > > there are *no* production-ready, pure OSS, CMS for PostgreSQL running on PHP > > > or Perl. I was looking at developing one with Andy Chase (based on his > > > "SnapSnap"), but then he got a job and Zapatec announced the launch of Bloki. > > > > What's wrong with Bricolage? > > > > Chris > > > > Actually I'm still waiting to here what was wrong with the current plan > to move the site to the zope/wiki engine... With Justin not driving it, was anyone going to step up to the plate and do so? So far, only person step up to try and fill Justin's shoes has been Josh ...
On Monday 14 Apr 2003 12:13 pm, Justin Clift wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > I suspect that someone new will need to take over Techdocs, in which case > > I'll take it and be moving it to Zapatec. Wanna help me port > > everything? > > Now before *anyone* says what'll be done with the Techdocs site next, > please lets think about what the PostgreSQL Community will benefit from > most as it's next stage of growth. The best _logical_ place for it is on > hub.org servers with everything else, but frankly... it generates extra > workload for the guys running those servers so I'd be more interesed in > seeing it elsewhere. Still named "techdocs.postgresql.org" if possible > (Marc?) but lets take the opportunity to reduce potential workload on > Chris/Marc/hub.org/etc and explore other possibilities. Is there any reason why the multi-user interactive part of techdocs needs to actually be at techdocs? What I'm trying to rather clumsily say is: run whatever cms/wiki you want at www.generouscompany.com and just publish static HTML to techdocs. PS - I've tried the wiki thing there currently, and I'm not convinced that for a document with sql/plpgsql in it it's any easier than HTML. If the solution ends up being FTP accounts, a template and my favourite text editor so be it - it's not like a few tags will scare contributors. PPS - PG/PHP/Perl experience, just shout if I can be of any use. Not too proud to do testing/cut & paste/search & replace etc. -- Richard Huxton
Greg,
> Call me a traditionalist, but how about the traditional cvs + "your
> favorite editor" approach? I don't think the techdocs section changes so
> often that we need fancy wiki / edit-from-the-web-on-the-fly sort of
> technology here. I also agree with Marc that there is no need to move it
> elsewhere right now. Let's just keep it simple, focus on the content, and
> add other things later.
Simple: Because people aren't contributing content because it's too much
work, both for the contributor and the TechDocs site administrator.
1) The majority of contributors to a Techdocs-style system will not have CVS
accounts, do not need CVS accounts, and some of them find CVS baffling and
confusing besides.
If someone e-mails you an article and you tell them, "Oh, this is very good,
why don't you sign up for a CVS account, just follow this 14-step guide and
wait 8 days for authorization," do you think that that article will get
posted?
2) Raw HTML editing of a decent length article takes as long as writing the
article itself, and I have yet to see a WYSWYG HTML editor which produced
output that could be cleanly incorporated into a CSS site framework without
extensive hand-tweaking.
The result of this is one of 3 things:
a) Some writers (like me) only contribute 1/2 as many articles because we
spend too much time tweaking our HTML.
b) Some writers contribute their articles to the admin as plain text, then
forcing the admin to spend 10 hours per week formatting articles for posting.
c) Some writers get discouraged by the long delay in posting, and give up on
contributing.
3) Except for the Guides pages, the tech for which is unfinished, the
structure of Techdocs does not allow multi-user collaboration or comments.
I *am* focusing on content, Greg. I want the focus of TechDocs to be
content, and for the technology (including CVS and HTML markup) to be
virtually invisible and take care of itself. The ONLY way to maximize
contributions is to make them as easy as possible to make.
Lord-on-a-pogo-stick, no wonder MySQL AB is beating our pants off in
community-building. MySQL.com doesn't require that a user have Stunnel, CVS,
and intermediate HTML skills before they can contribute even a paragraph to
the site! Justin has been trying to change this, and I want to finish that
change.
BTW, all of the above really goes for the advocacy site as well, except the
part about comments.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
I read this discussion
I think this is a long term process to get it done.
Why not developing a new portal structure for this?
the postgresql.org is newly developed.
I think there is a new project on gborg which does the further development.
I don't want to reinvent the wheel but if the community has a portal
software based on postgresql
this will help getting this discussion to an end and ther is a CMS for
postgresql that can be used.
only some thoughts
Ewald Geschwinde
Josh Berkus wrote:
>Greg,
>
>
>
>>Call me a traditionalist, but how about the traditional cvs + "your
>>favorite editor" approach? I don't think the techdocs section changes so
>>often that we need fancy wiki / edit-from-the-web-on-the-fly sort of
>>technology here. I also agree with Marc that there is no need to move it
>>elsewhere right now. Let's just keep it simple, focus on the content, and
>>add other things later.
>>
>>
>
>Simple: Because people aren't contributing content because it's too much
>work, both for the contributor and the TechDocs site administrator.
>
>1) The majority of contributors to a Techdocs-style system will not have CVS
>accounts, do not need CVS accounts, and some of them find CVS baffling and
>confusing besides.
> If someone e-mails you an article and you tell them, "Oh, this is very good,
>why don't you sign up for a CVS account, just follow this 14-step guide and
>wait 8 days for authorization," do you think that that article will get
>posted?
>
>2) Raw HTML editing of a decent length article takes as long as writing the
>article itself, and I have yet to see a WYSWYG HTML editor which produced
>output that could be cleanly incorporated into a CSS site framework without
>extensive hand-tweaking.
> The result of this is one of 3 things:
> a) Some writers (like me) only contribute 1/2 as many articles because we
>spend too much time tweaking our HTML.
> b) Some writers contribute their articles to the admin as plain text, then
>forcing the admin to spend 10 hours per week formatting articles for posting.
> c) Some writers get discouraged by the long delay in posting, and give up on
>contributing.
>
>3) Except for the Guides pages, the tech for which is unfinished, the
>structure of Techdocs does not allow multi-user collaboration or comments.
>
>I *am* focusing on content, Greg. I want the focus of TechDocs to be
>content, and for the technology (including CVS and HTML markup) to be
>virtually invisible and take care of itself. The ONLY way to maximize
>contributions is to make them as easy as possible to make.
>
>Lord-on-a-pogo-stick, no wonder MySQL AB is beating our pants off in
>community-building. MySQL.com doesn't require that a user have Stunnel, CVS,
>and intermediate HTML skills before they can contribute even a paragraph to
>the site! Justin has been trying to change this, and I want to finish that
>change.
>
>BTW, all of the above really goes for the advocacy site as well, except the
>part about comments.
>
>
>
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 13:03, Josh Berkus wrote: > Greg, > > > Call me a traditionalist, but how about the traditional cvs + "your > > favorite editor" approach? I don't think the techdocs section changes so > > often that we need fancy wiki / edit-from-the-web-on-the-fly sort of > > technology here. I also agree with Marc that there is no need to move it > > elsewhere right now. Let's just keep it simple, focus on the content, and > > add other things later. > > Simple: Because people aren't contributing content because it's too much > work, both for the contributor and the TechDocs site administrator. > agreed > 1) The majority of contributors to a Techdocs-style system will not have CVS > accounts, do not need CVS accounts, and some of them find CVS baffling and > confusing besides. > If someone e-mails you an article and you tell them, "Oh, this is very good, > why don't you sign up for a CVS account, just follow this 14-step guide and > wait 8 days for authorization," do you think that that article will get > posted? > agreed (meaning, no i don't think it will get published) > 2) Raw HTML editing of a decent length article takes as long as writing the > article itself, and I have yet to see a WYSWYG HTML editor which produced > output that could be cleanly incorporated into a CSS site framework without > extensive hand-tweaking. > The result of this is one of 3 things: > a) Some writers (like me) only contribute 1/2 as many articles because we > spend too much time tweaking our HTML. > b) Some writers contribute their articles to the admin as plain text, then > forcing the admin to spend 10 hours per week formatting articles for posting. > c) Some writers get discouraged by the long delay in posting, and give up on > contributing. > yep > 3) Except for the Guides pages, the tech for which is unfinished, the > structure of Techdocs does not allow multi-user collaboration or comments. > whoa... what makes the techdocs guide tech unfinished? AFAIR Justin was waiting on the switching of the techdocs site to a new VM, at which point he was going to convert the whole site to the "guides" format. The zwiki engine seems thorough enough for our use, and runs on postgresql, so I don't see any reason to completely dump it. Marc, are the VM issues taken care of? > I *am* focusing on content, Greg. I want the focus of TechDocs to be > content, and for the technology (including CVS and HTML markup) to be > virtually invisible and take care of itself. The ONLY way to maximize > contributions is to make them as easy as possible to make. > Absolutely. techdocs needs to be simple enough that people can "walk up" and copy/paste their content and move on. Others reading that content should be able to modify it if needed and move on. CVS doesn't handle this well enough, zwiki does. I think bricolage does, though I'm not solid on it's "anyone can modify anyones content" abilities. > Lord-on-a-pogo-stick, no wonder MySQL AB is beating our pants off in > community-building. MySQL.com doesn't require that a user have Stunnel, CVS, > and intermediate HTML skills before they can contribute even a paragraph to > the site! Um.. what exactly is the process for contributing articles for their site. Near as I can figure you send in an article and someone is *paid* to convert it and put it on their site. I don't think we have the avenue available to us. More to the point they're are probably beating the pants off of us on this issue because they have consistent, professional direction for their entire web presence. Other projects have achieved this, but we haven't. > Justin has been trying to change this, and I want to finish that > change. > Justin's change was to convert techdocs to zwiki after Marc resolved the VM issues. > BTW, all of the above really goes for the advocacy site as well, except the > part about comments. > I think the target of advocacy is different, simply because you need a more centralized message in place than what I think we're trying to achieve with techdocs. Not that it doesn't need a lot of work... Robert Treat
Robert, > whoa... what makes the techdocs guide tech unfinished? AFAIR Justin was > waiting on the switching of the techdocs site to a new VM, at which > point he was going to convert the whole site to the "guides" format. The > zwiki engine seems thorough enough for our use, and runs on postgresql, > so I don't see any reason to completely dump it. I was under the impression that Justin intended to add user authentication and methods to give some pages limited editing rights. For example, I wouldn't put any "adventures" articles up under the current authentication-free Zwiki structure; my articles are leading up to a PostgreSQL book, eventually, so they need a copyright statement and to be editable only by me. We definitely should keep the existing Zwiki for stuff like the GUI list. And I'd like to move the Book Reviews over to it. > Um.. what exactly is the process for contributing articles for their > site. Near as I can figure you send in an article and someone is *paid* > to convert it and put it on their site. I don't think we have the avenue > available to us. We don't? Dammit. ;-> > > More to the point they're are probably beating the pants off of us on > this issue because they have consistent, professional direction for > their entire web presence. Other projects have achieved this, but we > haven't. Lords, I could tell you things about OpenOffice.org ... but I won't. > I think the target of advocacy is different, simply because you need a > more centralized message in place than what I think we're trying to > achieve with techdocs. Not that it doesn't need a lot of work... Just that Advocacy needs dynamic content that can be edited by a limited list of users with a minimum of technical sophistication. FOr example, we could really use a dynamic ticker of "postgresql in the news" that anyone on this list can submit to, without a CVS account .... -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 14:12, Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > > > whoa... what makes the techdocs guide tech unfinished? AFAIR Justin was > > waiting on the switching of the techdocs site to a new VM, at which > > point he was going to convert the whole site to the "guides" format. The > > zwiki engine seems thorough enough for our use, and runs on postgresql, > > so I don't see any reason to completely dump it. > > I was under the impression that Justin intended to add user authentication and > methods to give some pages limited editing rights. For example, I wouldn't > put any "adventures" articles up under the current authentication-free Zwiki > structure; my articles are leading up to a PostgreSQL book, eventually, so > they need a copyright statement and to be editable only by me. > I don't think this was anything more than clicking a few buttons on a web page or at the most installing some sub packages. Surely he wasn't going to be coding in these features. > We definitely should keep the existing Zwiki for stuff like the GUI list. And > I'd like to move the Book Reviews over to it. > > > Um.. what exactly is the process for contributing articles for their > > site. Near as I can figure you send in an article and someone is *paid* > > to convert it and put it on their site. I don't think we have the avenue > > available to us. > > We don't? Dammit. ;-> > > > > > More to the point they're are probably beating the pants off of us on > > this issue because they have consistent, professional direction for > > their entire web presence. Other projects have achieved this, but we > > haven't. > > Lords, I could tell you things about OpenOffice.org ... but I won't. > > > I think the target of advocacy is different, simply because you need a > > more centralized message in place than what I think we're trying to > > achieve with techdocs. Not that it doesn't need a lot of work... > > Just that Advocacy needs dynamic content that can be edited by a limited list > of users with a minimum of technical sophistication. FOr example, we could > really use a dynamic ticker of "postgresql in the news" that anyone on this > list can submit to, without a CVS account .... > I'm going to avoid trying to fix advocacy until we get techdocs settled down. AFAICS we need to know if the VM issues have been taken care of by Marc, and if so then Justin needs to hook someone up with administrative rights to the techdocs zwiki engine. Robert Treat.
OK, In summary:
Justin needs a break.
Josh is willing to take over techdocs.
Elein, Richard, John are willing to help.
We have decided to keep techdocs at hub.org
with the other postgresql sites.
We will keep the current zwiki part of techdocs
and possibly enhance it.
We need to improve contribution turn around for
input into the techdoc page, ideally enabling
anyone to contribute articles, reviews, etc.
The decision on the infrastruction is up in the air.
The choices are:
a) static html/css
b) bricolage
c) php/css
d) wiki (enhanced or regular)
e) as yet unknown
Josh, if you are running the show, then you get to decide
on the infrastructure. But you'll need to look at the options
to find what you're most comfortable with. And everyone else gets
an opinion/input. I'm sure Marc will accomodate what we need
when we decide.
I'm familiar wikis, php/css and static html. I don't know
anything about bricolage (yet?). But I know how to create an
open wiki which is also human engineered to be structured and
how to keep it that way.
Lets get going.
elein
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elein@varlena.com Database Consulting www.varlena.com
I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.
Elein,
> We have decided to keep techdocs at hub.org
> with the other postgresql sites.
>
> We will keep the current zwiki part of techdocs
> and possibly enhance it.
>
> We need to improve contribution turn around for
> input into the techdoc page, ideally enabling
> anyone to contribute articles, reviews, etc.
This all sounds good.
> The decision on the infrastruction is up in the air.
> The choices are:
> a) static html/css
> b) bricolage
> c) php/css
> d) wiki (enhanced or regular)
> e) as yet unknown
f) Plone, which runs on Zope and might be adaptable to PostgreSQL; they just
made their 1.0 announcement and I need to check them out in more detail. Do
we have any Zope gurus on this list?
> Josh, if you are running the show, then you get to decide
> on the infrastructure. But you'll need to look at the options
> to find what you're most comfortable with. And everyone else gets
> an opinion/input. I'm sure Marc will accomodate what we need
> when we decide.
OK.
> I'm familiar wikis, php/css and static html. I don't know
> anything about bricolage (yet?). But I know how to create an
> open wiki which is also human engineered to be structured and
> how to keep it that way.
David (Wheeler), do you think Elein and I could do lunch with you sometime
next week?
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
On Tuesday 15 April 2003 01:09, you wrote: > OK, In summary: > > Justin needs a break. > Josh is willing to take over techdocs. > Elein, Richard, John are willing to help. > > We have decided to keep techdocs at hub.org > with the other postgresql sites. > > We will keep the current zwiki part of techdocs > and possibly enhance it. > > We need to improve contribution turn around for > input into the techdoc page, ideally enabling > anyone to contribute articles, reviews, etc. > > The decision on the infrastruction is up in the air. > The choices are: > a) static html/css > b) bricolage > c) php/css > d) wiki (enhanced or regular) > e) as yet unknown > > Josh, if you are running the show, then you get to decide > on the infrastructure. But you'll need to look at the options > to find what you're most comfortable with. And everyone else gets > an opinion/input. I'm sure Marc will accomodate what we need > when we decide. May I suggest another option. Let's create documents in latex/lyx etc. Whoever has a suggestion over it, can submit a comment in a web forum. Author group look at the comment, act accordingly on it and clear the comment. Think of it as a bug tracking system. A standard response time of 1-2 business days should be good enough. This way people who has editing access will have authenticated access. Since the number should be fairly limited and we can do away with CVS authentication, we do not need a content management system facing the world. Not every visitor should have edit access. That is somewhat 'off the mark' approach IMO. If the update suggestions flowing in are going to be steady and low, I think this should work. Furthermore we can separate authors and editors so that we continue to add new material, while maintening the material in consistent state. Furthermore with latex, we really get the ability to focus on contents, rather than formatting. Just my 2 cents. Shridhar
On Sunday, April 13, 2003, at 01:07 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bricolage is fine ... I just always got the impression from you,
> David, that
> it is a little heavy-duty for techdocs. We don't, for example, need
> workflow, server-neutral output, distribution, or document management.
> Is
> there a "Bricolage Light"?
"Everything you ever wanted in a CMS. And less."
No, 'fraid not.
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@kineticode.com ICQ: 15726394
Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org
Kineticode. Setting knowledge in motion.[sm]
Shridhar, > May I suggest another option. Let's create documents in latex/lyx etc. Er ... no. I won't use latex; I'm not going to ask anyone else to. That'd be the same as distributing Emacs macros for Techdocs and requiring everyone to use those. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with Latex. What I'm saying is that we absolutely cannot adopt any solution that requires content submitters to have specific software installed on their computers. Web forms are the way to go. Nor does your suggestion solve the problem of how to get the documents on the web page if the submitter doesn't have CVS access .... -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 12:35 US/Central, Josh Berkus wrote: > Nor does your suggestion solve the problem of how to get the documents > on the > web page if the submitter doesn't have CVS access .... I'm not sure I understand the CVS requirement as a big problem. I see people not wanting CVS for two reasons: - Requiring submitters to understand CVS. But honestly, I'm not sure about the quality of any tech document written by someone who doesn't. - Requiring submitters to have a CVS account. I've contributed via CVS to many projects at which I have no account. I make a patch file and send it to someone who does. I don't think that creates much more work for me or them. Scott
Quoting Scott Lamb <slamb@slamb.org>: > On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 12:35 US/Central, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Nor does your suggestion solve the problem of how to get the documents > > > on the > > web page if the submitter doesn't have CVS access .... > > I'm not sure I understand the CVS requirement as a big problem. I see > people not wanting CVS for two reasons: > > - Requiring submitters to understand CVS. But honestly, I'm not sure > about the quality of any tech document written by someone who doesn't. Here's a really good, practical example. I personally hadn't gotten the hang of CVS at all until just a few months ago, having to learn it to become really involved with the eRServer project (PostgreSQL Enterprise Replication Server). One of the significant contributing reasons to the jobs.postgresql.org site not getting off the ground was because everyone who wanted to work on it had to commit to CVS in order to do anything. CVS *is* too much complexity to ask for us to achieve the best level of contribution. That's a (personal) firm opinion from being a person that didn't understand CVS, coming through to now using it daily. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > - Requiring submitters to have a CVS account. I've contributed via CVS > to many projects at which I have no account. I make a patch file and > send it to someone who does. I don't think that creates much more work > for me or them. > > Scott > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > >
Folks <Tirade Warning> > - Requiring submitters to understand CVS. But honestly, I'm not sure > about the quality of any tech document written by someone who doesn't. Aha, now the "geekier than thou" attitude comes through. One of the things that we could desperately use for TechDocs, for example, is an article like "Creating An OpenOffice.org Mail Merge document from a PostgreSQL database." In what way does the author of such a document need a knowledge of CVS? Or take the Book Review page. How does a knowledge of CVS have *any* bearing on how good the book reviews are? Pardon my tirade, but I've been seeing this attitude not just from Scott, but from lots of people on this list and on -Hackers as well. The attitude is "If you're not a top geek, we don't want you in our club." The problem with this attitude is that top geeks only constitute .0002% of the population, and only about 5% of the software developers. Projects, and companies, that forget that end up being sidelined by teams that take a more populist approach. Witness the success of MS Access. As far as I am concerned, the main purpose of TechDocs should *not* be to support PostgreSQL Programmers. They can join Hackers and read the source code. We need TechDocs to support the less technical users ... which other users can do on a peer-to-peer basis, *IF* they are not required to become "top geeks" before they are allowed entrance into the hollowed halls of our exclusive club. There are certainly people in our community who prefer PostgreSQL as a small OSS project with a limited membership. I respect that; we have a very nice group and I don't really look forward to the kind of community management headaches that popular projects like OpenOffice.org have. However, I am an independant consultant, and if PostgreSQL gets sidelined by MySQL, I will be forced to use MySQL to support my customers. I don't want that to happen. <end tirade> -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 13:58 US/Central, Josh Berkus wrote: >> - Requiring submitters to understand CVS. But honestly, I'm not sure >> about the quality of any tech document written by someone who doesn't. > > One of the things that we could desperately use for TechDocs, for > example, is > an article like "Creating An OpenOffice.org Mail Merge document from a > PostgreSQL database." In what way does the author of such a document > need a > knowledge of CVS? Okay, I see your point and Justin's. My attitude comes from thinking that anyone who uses PostgreSQL is going to do so as part of a development project. If that were true, I think that my statement would follow, since I believe that anyone who develops well does so using version control. But maybe it's not true that all PostgreSQL users are developers. A mail merge is a good example of something you can do with PostgreSQL without being a developer. Scott
Scott, > My attitude comes from thinking that anyone who uses PostgreSQL is > going to do so as part of a development project. If that were true, I > think that my statement would follow, since I believe that anyone who > develops well does so using version control. But maybe it's not true > that all PostgreSQL users are developers. A mail merge is a good > example of something you can do with PostgreSQL without being a > developer. And the majority of *database application developers* have no exposure to CVS, Emacs, Latex, or similar "Unix geek" utilities. Last I checked from Evans Data, acutally, something like 30% of database developers got their start with MS Access. We want those people to move up to Postgres. (BTW, I, like Justin, know how to use CVS but find it arcane and annoying. Also CVS isn't the only version control system in the world, nor the easiest to use. May I point out that Linus has stopped using CVS for the kernel?) Oh, and I took you out of the direct mail path, since that tirade wasn't *specifically* aimed at you ... you're hardly the only person who's said to me "but if they can't code raw HTML/do CVS/master latex they don't *deserve* to participate." Even this week. To contrast: know why OpenOffice.org is the #2 talked about OSS project in the world? Because OOo has over 100 strictly non-technical marketing and commmunity-building volunteers. We won't get that because we are a technical project, but we could make use of the non-technical contributors we do have instead of giving them the burshoff. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> Okay, I see your point and Justin's. > > My attitude comes from thinking that anyone who uses PostgreSQL is > going to do so as part of a development project. If that were true, I > think that my statement would follow, since I believe that anyone who > develops well does so using version control. But maybe it's not true > that all PostgreSQL users are developers. A mail merge is a good > example of something you can do with PostgreSQL without being a > developer. - *many* developers don't use CVS, especially those they are on Windows - CVS is not the only version control system around... - postgres should be appealing additionally to people who aren't yet excellent software developers. It is a great learning environment for beginners in software development -r -- Ryan Mahoney <ryan@paymentalliance.net>
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 15:32, Josh Berkus wrote: > And the majority of *database application developers* have no exposure to CVS, > Emacs, Latex, or similar "Unix geek" utilities. What about SGML/DocBook? The Linux Documentation Project has tons of user-contributed documentation written by individuals of varying levels of technical skill, and they seem to be doing fine with DocBook, and without a fancy CMS system. > (BTW, I, like Justin, know how to use CVS but find it arcane and annoying. > Also CVS isn't the only version control system in the world, nor the easiest > to use. May I point out that Linus has stopped using CVS for the kernel?) <OT> Linus never used CVS for the kernel. But since his requirements for a version control system are far in excess of whatever techdocs would need, I don't really see how it's relevant. </OT> I understand the need to settle on the right technology, but before we get ahead of ourselves, perhaps we can just pick something and be done with it? Just my 2 cents... Cheers, Neil
Geez Neil, if I didn't know better I'd say you were trying to troll with your docbook suggestion. Before Josh goes off on another rant or justin gets his nickers in a pinch or someone else recommends doing everything in .doc format can we all just take a break for a bit? We have a plan, step #1 is determining the status of our server. Marc, can we get an update on that? Are there still plans to move techdocs or has that been taken care of? Robert Treat On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 16:21, Neil Conway wrote: > On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 15:32, Josh Berkus wrote: > > And the majority of *database application developers* have no exposure to CVS, > > Emacs, Latex, or similar "Unix geek" utilities. > > What about SGML/DocBook? The Linux Documentation Project has tons of > user-contributed documentation written by individuals of varying levels > of technical skill, and they seem to be doing fine with DocBook, and > without a fancy CMS system. > > > (BTW, I, like Justin, know how to use CVS but find it arcane and annoying. > > Also CVS isn't the only version control system in the world, nor the easiest > > to use. May I point out that Linus has stopped using CVS for the kernel?) > > <OT> > > Linus never used CVS for the kernel. But since his requirements for a > version control system are far in excess of whatever techdocs would > need, I don't really see how it's relevant. > > </OT> > > I understand the need to settle on the right technology, but before we > get ahead of ourselves, perhaps we can just pick something and be done > with it? > > Just my 2 cents... > > Cheers, > > Neil >
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > Geez Neil, if I didn't know better I'd say you were trying to troll with > your docbook suggestion. Before Josh goes off on another rant or justin > gets his nickers in a pinch or someone else recommends doing everything > in .doc format can we all just take a break for a bit? > > We have a plan, step #1 is determining the status of our server. > > Marc, can we get an update on that? Are there still plans to move > techdocs or has that been taken care of? Other then moving techdocs to the postgresql.org VM, there are no plans to actually move it ... whether it stays in its current incarnation, or moves to bricolage, or moves to ... depends on who feels they are up to stepping into Justin's shoes on that site ...
Marc, > Other then moving techdocs to the postgresql.org VM, there are no plans to > actually move it ... whether it stays in its current incarnation, or moves > to bricolage, or moves to ... depends on who feels they are up to stepping > into Justin's shoes on that site ... Did Justin already install Zope on the site? Plone is looking pretty good. David says there's no "light" version of Bricolage :-( -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Yes, I believe he did to play with the Wiki stuff ... On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Marc, > > > Other then moving techdocs to the postgresql.org VM, there are no plans to > > actually move it ... whether it stays in its current incarnation, or moves > > to bricolage, or moves to ... depends on who feels they are up to stepping > > into Justin's shoes on that site ... > > Did Justin already install Zope on the site? Plone is looking pretty good. > David says there's no "light" version of Bricolage :-( > > -- > -Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > >
On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 14:32 US/Central, Josh Berkus wrote: > Scott, > >> My attitude comes from thinking that anyone who uses PostgreSQL is >> going to do so as part of a development project. If that were true, I >> think that my statement would follow, since I believe that anyone who >> develops well does so using version control. But maybe it's not true >> that all PostgreSQL users are developers. A mail merge is a good >> example of something you can do with PostgreSQL without being a >> developer. > > And the majority of *database application developers* have no exposure > to CVS, > Emacs, Latex, or similar "Unix geek" utilities. Last I checked from > Evans > Data, acutally, something like 30% of database developers got their > start > with MS Access. We want those people to move up to Postgres. Yes, I suppose this problem, broadly, comes from us not having the same idea of the intended audience for the techdocs or the same idea of who would be contributing. I had made more assumptions about both groups: namely that the audience would be more Unix-oriented (beginning)? OSS developers and that the contributors would be significantly more knowledgeable than the average audience member. You've convinced me that's not a reasonable assumption; please leave it at that. I don't need the tirade. > (BTW, I, like Justin, know how to use CVS but find it arcane and > annoying. > Also CVS isn't the only version control system in the world, nor the > easiest > to use. May I point out that Linus has stopped using CVS for the > kernel?) Sure, I use Subversion. But I don't think CVS is particularly difficult to use. There are tools like TortoiseCVS and Cervisia available that give you a decent GUI. (We use TortoiseCVS at work.)
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 17:17, Josh Berkus wrote: > Marc, > > > Other then moving techdocs to the postgresql.org VM, there are no plans to > > actually move it ... yeah, those are the plans I'm referring to. I recall Justin saying he wanted to hold off any drastic changes to techdocs until that move had taken place.. whether it stays in its current incarnation, or moves > > to bricolage, or moves to ... depends on who feels they are up to stepping > > into Justin's shoes on that site ... > > Did Justin already install Zope on the site? Plone is looking pretty good. > David says there's no "light" version of Bricolage :-( > Zope is installed given zwiki is currently powering the guides section of the techdocs site. Personally I think plone is overkill for techdocs. Photo Albums? Polls? Zwiki by itself will give us what we need without duplicating things that should be done at the other sites. Robert Treat
Robert,
> Zope is installed given zwiki is currently powering the guides section
> of the techdocs site. Personally I think plone is overkill for techdocs.
> Photo Albums? Polls? Zwiki by itself will give us what we need without
> duplicating things that should be done at the other sites.
The probblem, as I see it, is that Zwiki lacks an user+page rights
administration interface. From the docs, one has to add DHTML code to every
single page which you want to have special rights; there's no cental
management.
From my perspective, we need a system which supports the following rights
options, *without* requring hand-tweaking of the DHTML of each page:
-- Only admin can edit the page
-- Only the original submitter and the admin can edit the page
-- Only registered users can edit the page
-- Anyone can edit the page
We also need a system that allows uploading of files and embedding of images
by users. And I would prefer one that supports heirarchy trails at the top
of the page to help users navigate.
Doubtless Zwiki could be improved to include all these things. But as I
don't even do Python, I'm not the one to do it ...
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > > > Zope is installed given zwiki is currently powering the guides section > > of the techdocs site. Personally I think plone is overkill for techdocs. > > Photo Albums? Polls? Zwiki by itself will give us what we need without > > duplicating things that should be done at the other sites. > > The probblem, as I see it, is that Zwiki lacks an user+page rights > administration interface. From the docs, one has to add DHTML code to every > single page which you want to have special rights; there's no cental > management. > > From my perspective, we need a system which supports the following rights > options, *without* requring hand-tweaking of the DHTML of each page: > -- Only admin can edit the page > -- Only the original submitter and the admin can edit the page > -- Only registered users can edit the page > -- Anyone can edit the page > > We also need a system that allows uploading of files and embedding of images > by users. And I would prefer one that supports heirarchy trails at the top > of the page to help users navigate. > > Doubtless Zwiki could be improved to include all these things. But as I > don't even do Python, I'm not the one to do it ... 'K, let's try this from a different perspective ... first, I don' care what technology that we move techdocs over to so long as its OSS, and runs under FreeBSD ... With that in mind, Josh ... since you seem willing to take the lead on this, I think that this falls under more an 'administrative' then a 'user' decision ... what tools do you require? Please note that altho Bricolage (or someone mentioned something called plone?) might be "overkill", who cares if you don't use all the features, as long as those features you do use meet your needs?
Marc,
> Please note that altho Bricolage (or someone mentioned something
> called plone?) might be "overkill", who cares if you don't use all the
> features, as long as those features you do use meet your needs?
Good point.
OK, when I'm over the current "hump" it's time to test the various CMSes, and
we'll see what has all the features I want without becoming impossible to
admin.
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
On Tuesday 15 April 2003 06:51 pm, Josh Berkus wrote: > Marc, > > > With that in mind, Josh ... since you seem willing to take the lead on > > this, I think that this falls under more an 'administrative' then a 'user' > > decision ... what tools do you require? > > > Please note that altho Bricolage (or someone mentioned something > > called plone?) might be "overkill", who cares if you don't use all the > > features, as long as those features you do use meet your needs? > > Good point. > > OK, when I'm over the current "hump" it's time to test the various CMSes, > and we'll see what has all the features I want without becoming impossible > to admin. <rant mode on> You know, I find it astonishing that people would still try to thrust the mantle of techdoc king upon one persons shoulders. And no offense to Josh, especially when that someone is not involved in any of the other web site maintenance efforts. If there is one thing we should have learned by now it's that one person is not going to do it alone. We can all sit around and claim that the workload is just too great to manage without some uber piece of software cms to run the show, but you know what, for all the bashing that's been done I don't think we have really prooven that the html/cvs model wouldn't work because we've never even tried it. If techdocs had an issue with staying up to date I'd say it had far more to do with the fact that one person was responsible for it and that there was *no* system in place for others to help out. I updated the hosting provider information in about 15 minutes today, but in most cases that would have never gotten done because 1. We continue to funnel web changes through individuals and closed groups 2. The only way to make changes is to "develop on production" As far as content contributions go, I'm sure the current situation isn't great, but then again I don't see a bevy of postgresql related articles appearing on any other sites either, so I don't think we have definitive proof on that either.... It should be obvious to us that one person running the show just isn't going to be successful. This isn't because the people aren't willing to work, in fact it's really because these people tend to be involved in so many ways they're simply pulled in too many directions. The concept of development in an open forum steered by a core committee seems to work so well for the database code, it drives me bonkers trying to figure out why people are so against it for our web strategy. <rant mode off> And with all of that, I'm going to try to focus on the main www site for awhile, but I'm willing to update the current techdocs "on the fly" until Josh comes up with a better solution. I'm not sure where change requests should be sent... I'll probably see it if posted to one of the news groups, or a web form posting to pgsql-techdocs (or pgsql-www) would be a good way to do it, though it would require a little code and cooperation..... Robert Treat
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 00:28, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks > > <Tirade Warning> > > > - Requiring submitters to understand CVS. But honestly, I'm not sure > > about the quality of any tech document written by someone who doesn't. > > Aha, now the "geekier than thou" attitude comes through. > > One of the things that we could desperately use for TechDocs, for example, > is an article like "Creating An OpenOffice.org Mail Merge document from a > PostgreSQL database." In what way does the author of such a document need > a knowledge of CVS? Nops. Not at all. > Pardon my tirade, but I've been seeing this attitude not just from Scott, > but from lots of people on this list and on -Hackers as well. The > attitude is "If you're not a top geek, we don't want you in our club." The > problem with this attitude is that top geeks only constitute .0002% of the > population, and only about 5% of the software developers. I would rather put it this way. You don't know CVS, fine. Create a document in a standard software. Anything that supports, header1-header3, table of contents, lists and bullets and some images is enough. A group of person will take care of publishing the document. Does not sound biased in any sense. Does it? I suggested latex/lyx beecause I found that it offers maximum amount of productivity with minimum external dependecies. If there are any other choices which are a portable and easy, I don't mind, as long as they satisfy basic requierments I mentioned above. I am replying to this post after I finished all the threads on this topic. Frankly I am not sure what is the final decision. All I know, is I want to contribute. Please tell me how can I do it. I would like to undercommit and overperform, to make sure that I do what I would commit. Thanks. Shridhar
On Wednesday 16 Apr 2003 8:05 am, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > I would rather put it this way. You don't know CVS, fine. Create a document > in a standard software. Anything that supports, header1-header3, table of > contents, lists and bullets and some images is enough. A group of person > will take care of publishing the document. > > Does not sound biased in any sense. Does it? > > I suggested latex/lyx beecause I found that it offers maximum amount of > productivity with minimum external dependecies. If there are any other > choices which are a portable and easy, I don't mind, as long as they > satisfy basic requierments I mentioned above. > > I am replying to this post after I finished all the threads on this topic. > Frankly I am not sure what is the final decision. All I know, is I want to > contribute. Please tell me how can I do it. I would like to undercommit and > overperform, to make sure that I do what I would commit. Replying to list and others who offered to help on techdocs (sorry if I missed you, this has been a long thread) Right - how about this as a stop-gap. 1. Shridhar, myself and anyone else who is prepared to volunteer take responsibility for converting docs in whatever format into standard HTML and posting them on the site. 2. Responsibilty rotates with an "updates officer" and a backup person, one week per volunteer. 3. We set a 3-day turnaround for new submissions. 4. The two of us put together some template documents so people can cut and paste sections for: Word, OpenOffice, LyX, HTML. Templates to be available as of Friday 25th. 5. Submissions are dealt with by email to advocacy/docs/some other address. Josh takes a few weeks (4-8?) to investigate options and come up with a better solution. Once a good option is identified, volunteers are sought for whatever roles are required. Any good? -- Richard Huxton
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 15:21, Richard Huxton wrote: > Right - how about this as a stop-gap. > > 1. Shridhar, myself and anyone else who is prepared to volunteer take > responsibility for converting docs in whatever format into standard HTML > and posting them on the site. > 2. Responsibilty rotates with an "updates officer" and a backup person, one > week per volunteer. > 3. We set a 3-day turnaround for new submissions. > 4. The two of us put together some template documents so people can cut and > paste sections for: Word, OpenOffice, LyX, HTML. Templates to be available > as of Friday 25th. > 5. Submissions are dealt with by email to advocacy/docs/some other address. > > Josh takes a few weeks (4-8?) to investigate options and come up with a > better solution. Once a good option is identified, volunteers are sought > for whatever roles are required. I agree. Just one addition. We need to setup access to website so that only few can update it actually. Shridhar
I'm backing up here to the original message.
Robert--no one suggested that Josh is going at
taking over techdocs alone. There are several here
who volunteered to join him. And clearly it will take
Marc and others to help us get things together.
Richard/Shridhar--what exactly are you planning
on changing except for fixing the things we know
are broken? I know about the things in my original
message below.
elein
On Friday 11 April 2003 16:15, elein wrote:
> Who do I contact about the tech doc pages now?
>
> My entry on the consultants page has disappeared
> (not nice) and the commercial support page has gone 404
> (link from techdocs home in left column).
>
> And finally, what exactly is the public status of the wiki-ized
> tech docs?
>
> If the only solution is to be added to the web mailing list,
> can I be added, then?
>
> thanks,
>
> elein@varlena.com
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elein@varlena.com Database Consulting www.varlena.com
I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 14:38, elein wrote: > On Friday 11 April 2003 16:15, elein wrote: > > Who do I contact about the tech doc pages now? > > I have access to the machine, I'll make changes until someone tells me different. > > My entry on the consultants page has disappeared > > (not nice) if you send me your information I will add it back in. > > and the commercial support page has gone 404 > > (link from techdocs home in left column). > > does anyone know what page this was linking to? I can't find any copy of it and am planning to remove the link at this point. Robert Treat
Robert, > > > and the commercial support page has gone 404 > > > (link from techdocs home in left column). > > > > > does anyone know what page this was linking to? I can't find any copy of > it and am planning to remove the link at this point. It used to link to the "commercial support" page at www.postgresql.org, or maybe to PostgreSQL Inc.'s homepage. I'm not sure. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 15:08, Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > > > > > and the commercial support page has gone 404 > > > > (link from techdocs home in left column). > > > > > > > > does anyone know what page this was linking to? I can't find any copy of > > it and am planning to remove the link at this point. > > It used to link to the "commercial support" page at www.postgresql.org, or > maybe to PostgreSQL Inc.'s homepage. I'm not sure. > uh...yeah, I got that. What I can't figure out is just what was the "commercial support page". I don't see any file by that name on the www machine. Robert Treat
I believe it disappeared from the postgresql.org main site as well. Josh--one small item will be to consolidate commercial & consultant pages into one clear place. Robert-I'll send you my info directly. Thanks. elein On Wednesday 16 April 2003 12:12, Robert Treat wrote: > On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 15:08, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Robert, > > > > > > > and the commercial support page has gone 404 > > > > > (link from techdocs home in left column). > > > > > > does anyone know what page this was linking to? I can't find any copy > > > of it and am planning to remove the link at this point. > > > > It used to link to the "commercial support" page at www.postgresql.org, > > or maybe to PostgreSQL Inc.'s homepage. I'm not sure. > > uh...yeah, I got that. What I can't figure out is just what was the > "commercial support page". I don't see any file by that name on the www > machine. > > Robert Treat > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- elein@varlena.com Database Consulting www.varlena.com I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.
Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > > >>>>and the commercial support page has gone 404 >>>>(link from techdocs home in left column). >>>> >> >>does anyone know what page this was linking to? I can't find any copy of >>it and am planning to remove the link at this point. > > > It used to link to the "commercial support" page at www.postgresql.org, or > maybe to PostgreSQL Inc.'s homepage. I'm not sure. Hi guys, It's supposed to link to the listing of commercial support providers on www.postgresql.org. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 09:29 pm, Justin Clift wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > Robert, > > > >>>>and the commercial support page has gone 404 > >>>>(link from techdocs home in left column). > >> > >>does anyone know what page this was linking to? I can't find any copy of > >>it and am planning to remove the link at this point. > > > > It used to link to the "commercial support" page at www.postgresql.org, > > or maybe to PostgreSQL Inc.'s homepage. I'm not sure. > > Hi guys, > > It's supposed to link to the listing of commercial support providers on > www.postgresql.org. > who's on first? given this document doesn't seem to exist on www anymore, I will remove the link untill someone comes up with a valid URL Robert Treat
> > I'm backing up here to the original message. > > Robert--no one suggested that Josh is going at > taking over techdocs alone. There are several here > who volunteered to join him. And clearly it will take > Marc and others to help us get things together. > > Richard/Shridhar--what exactly are you planning > on changing except for fixing the things we know > are broken? I know about the things in my original > message below. > > elein I wasn't (and I've not spoken to Shridar) planning on changing anything in the "restructure the site" sense. Just fix broken links as they are spotted, handle new submissions, changes etc. and act as "caretaker" until a decision is reached as to the next step. - Richard Huxton
Okay, I'm looking back at this thread from a week ago about using CVS for the websites. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the more I look at it, the more I think that the arguments that convinced me were not good. On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 12:46 US/Central, "" <justin@postgresql.org> wrote: > One of the significant contributing reasons to the jobs.postgresql.org > site not > getting off the ground was because everyone who wanted to work on it > had to > commit to CVS in order to do anything. Where was this discussed? I looked for like a pgsql-jobs and pgsql-jobs-cvs mailing list and found nothing. I did find a few messages from you, Justin. I.e., <http://www.faqchest.com/prgm/pgsql-l/pgsql-01/pgsql-0109/pgsql-010911/ pgsql01090905_08772.html> But a google search for "jobs.postgresql.org" turned up only that. No mention of mailing lists existing anywhere. Pretty much nothing. I don't think jobs.postgresql.org is a good example of this not working, because from what little I can see from here, CVS is not why it failed. No one knew about it, it didn't have the same sort of associated stuff that would be expected for a code project. I really find it hard to believe that CVS is a barrier to anyone, even if they are MS Access users on Windows. There are lots and lots of open source projects out there with inexperienced developers who manage to use CVS. There are projects like TortoiseCVS that provide easy-to-use GUIs for Windows (we use that one at work). Justin, I think your statements actually proved my point - you didn't know your way around CVS then needed to use it for a project, so you learned it. And I would guess learned much more about it than you need to update to head, add, and commit/diff. Because that's all I really see adding a page to this website requiring. And again, TortoiseCVS makes that very easy. Honestly, I think it's more elitist to say "we can't use time-saving tools because people are too stupid to learn them", to twist your (you plural) words in a similar manner to the way mine were twisted. Scott
Scott, > Honestly, I think it's more elitist to say "we can't use time-saving > tools because people are too stupid to learn them", to twist your (you > plural) words in a similar manner to the way mine were twisted. More to the point is the argument that: "CVS is not the time-saving tool that a Wiki or other CMS with web-based editing is." In other words, CVS is better than what we have now, but not as good as a CMS. If we're going to adopt new technology for the site(s), it makes sense to adopt the technology that gives us the most output for the least work, don't you? And a corellary argument: "Josh Berkus is willing to admin Techdocs and possibly other sites (Jobs.postgresql.org?) provided that they are based on a CMS. If these sites a managed by CVS, someone else will have to volunteer." -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Quoting Scott Lamb <slamb@slamb.org>: > Okay, I'm looking back at this thread from a week ago about using CVS > for the websites. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the > more I look at it, the more I think that the arguments that convinced > me were not good. > > On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 12:46 US/Central, "" > <justin@postgresql.org> wrote: > > One of the significant contributing reasons to the jobs.postgresql.org > > > site not > > getting off the ground was because everyone who wanted to work on it > > > had to > > commit to CVS in order to do anything. > > Where was this discussed? I looked for like a pgsql-jobs and > pgsql-jobs-cvs mailing list and found nothing. There was a private mailing list that the people who volunteered subscribed to. > I don't think jobs.postgresql.org is a good example of this not > working, because from what little I can see from here, CVS is not why > it failed. No one knew about it, it didn't have the same sort of > associated stuff that would be expected for a code project. CVS is definitely one of the larger factors to why it failed. *But* don't get me wrong, it wasn't the primary cause, just one of the factors. The reason I'm against CVS for the techdocs site is because I believe it raises the "barrier to entry" far higher than what a site based on _community edited content_ should be. Sure, there can be a number of ways of doing any of this, and CVS could work in some situations... but it unnecessarily reduces the number of people that can participate. <snip> > Scott
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 08:51, justin@postgresql.org wrote: > Quoting Scott Lamb <slamb@slamb.org>: > > > Okay, I'm looking back at this thread from a week ago about using CVS > > for the websites. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the > > more I look at it, the more I think that the arguments that convinced > > me were not good. > > > > On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 12:46 US/Central, "" > > <justin@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > One of the significant contributing reasons to the jobs.postgresql.org > > > > > site not > > > getting off the ground was because everyone who wanted to work on it > > > > > had to > > > commit to CVS in order to do anything. > > > > Where was this discussed? I looked for like a pgsql-jobs and > > pgsql-jobs-cvs mailing list and found nothing. > > There was a private mailing list that the people who volunteered subscribed to. > I'd just like to put forth the opinion that the private list/discussion is the reason why it never got off the ground. that said, I have on it on my todo list to add some basic links to job search sites to the page rather than leaving it as "under development". if anyone is interested in working on a more full fledged jobs.postgresql.org site, please put forward a proposal. Robert Treat
On Friday 25 April 2003 20:46, Robert Treat wrote: > that said, I have on it on my todo list to add some basic links to job > search sites to the page rather than leaving it as "under development". > if anyone is interested in working on a more full fledged > jobs.postgresql.org site, please put forward a proposal. I would be willing to develop an application that would allow requirements to be submitted, notifications forwarded to mailing lists/members etc. and allow search. Of course, if we would have Would that qualify as jobs.postgresql.org? I don't know.. Is there any readymade software that can do this, I don't know either.. Shridhar
On Friday 25 April 2003 20:51, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > On Friday 25 April 2003 20:46, Robert Treat wrote: > > that said, I have on it on my todo list to add some basic links to job > > search sites to the page rather than leaving it as "under development". > > if anyone is interested in working on a more full fledged > > jobs.postgresql.org site, please put forward a proposal. > > I would be willing to develop an application that would allow requirements > to be submitted, notifications forwarded to mailing lists/members etc. and > allow search. Of course, if we would have Of course if we would have requirements clear, that would be great.. Pressing Cntrl-Enter instead on enter is bad habit..:-(
On Friday, Apr 25, 2003, at 10:16 US/Central, Robert Treat wrote: > On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 08:51, justin@postgresql.org wrote: >> There was a private mailing list that the people who volunteered >> subscribed to. > > I'd just like to put forth the opinion that the private list/discussion > is the reason why it never got off the ground. 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? Scott
Scott, > 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? I'm not sure what CMS system I'm leaning toward; I need to do a review. However, here are the characteristics I'm leaning toward for Techdocs and jobs.postgresql.org if I can manage it: 1) Any authorized user will be able to edit content through webforms, possibly through another system as well (WebDAV, maybe?). Both wiki-editing and HTML should be available. 2) All content will be version-archived. 3) The site will be heirarchically organized, and search-indexed, automatically. 4) We need some form of multi-lingual support (can anyone help with this? I haven't done a mulit-lingual app before.) 5) Site admin will be a function of the CMS application, not of command-line permissions on the web server, so that others can share admin duties. 6) It will include a full-fledged wiki component, as well as some non-wiki areas. Once again, I am not interested in working with CVS. As I see it, content-focussed satellite sites (like TechDocs) are where the less Unix-inclined amoung PostgreSQL's supporters can make contributions. As such, contributing content should not require specialized software or technical knowledge beyond that required to write the content. The above requirements probably mean that I will need to create my own CMS, possibly by down-scaling Bricolage or up-scaling PHPWiki, or similar. I'll get it done; I just had a contract cancelled and need to improve some of my web-scripting skills. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 12:54, Scott Lamb wrote: > > On Friday, Apr 25, 2003, at 10:16 US/Central, Robert Treat wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 08:51, justin@postgresql.org wrote: > >> There was a private mailing list that the people who volunteered > >> subscribed to. > > > > I'd just like to put forth the opinion that the private list/discussion > > is the reason why it never got off the ground. > > 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. Robert Treat
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
> The above requirements probably mean that I will need to create my own CMS, > possibly by down-scaling Bricolage or up-scaling PHPWiki, or similar. I'll > get it done; I just had a contract cancelled and need to improve some of my > web-scripting skills. Those are fair, but *if* the CMS has anything that is not configurable through it's own interface (HTML templates perhaps?), then they should be available via another method. -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
Attachment
Rod, > Those are fair, but *if* the CMS has anything that is not configurable > through it's own interface (HTML templates perhaps?), then they should > be available via another method. Yes, definitely. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Scott,
> 1) Anyone, without having been granted a membership or having made a
> huge commitment to the project, can quickly view all the code/content
> and prepare some modifications/additions to the site and submit it to
> someone who has access (through a mailing list, through a web form,
> whatever). That person must be able to quickly add it.
My experience over 3 years on 2 projects has been that any time contributions
to a content site have to be funneled through a limited list of technically
proficient and/or rights-priveleged admins, that there quickly develops a
major bottleneck in site updates.
> 2) It exists now, so the project isn't put on hold while one person
> works on recreating a CMS from scratch.
That's your best argument yet.
> That's why I want CVS. If there's something else that can provide that,
> that's fine. But I'm not seeing that in what you're suggesting.
>
> I'm not going to make any statements like "if it's not CVS, I won't be
> involved" for two reasons: (A) Because I know that wouldn't carry as
> much weight as when you say it, because I haven't been involved in the
> past. But more importantly, (B) because I feel that sort of
> statement/attitude is never a productive way of pushing a viewpoint. It
> should be about convincing people that your way has advantages, not
> throwing your weight until they give in.
No, it's just volunteerocracy. If you want to admin techdocs, please,
volunteer! I'll be happy to just submit articles and have you worry about
the HTML markup and getting them posted. My statement is that "I will not
admin techdocs if it's CVS based and not CMS based."
> Once again, I feel they will be able to with CVS. As is, without CVS,
> no one can make contributions to the site except for a very few people.
> (_That's_ elitist!) I would be perfectly willing to write a techdoc
> called "Adding to the techdocs" that describes how to install and use
> TortoiseCVS on Windows, prepare a diff, and send it in. And like
> instructions on Unix and Mac OS X (I suspect they already exist in a
> million places).
Of course, this doesn't help people with HTML markup, or when the site
updaters are all on vacation, or with automated site maintainence (like link
forwarding) or any similar things.
My viewpoint is: with a good CMS, *any* registered user can submit content at
any time. They don't have to have software installed beyond a browser, and
they don't have to wait for an admin to read their e-mail.
> On the other hand, CVS exists now and works now. It could be set up
> tomorrow, including the mailing lists and archives and everything.
As I said, that's your most persuasive argument. You want to do it?
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > No, it's just volunteerocracy. If you want to admin techdocs, please, > volunteer! I'll be happy to just submit articles and have you worry about > the HTML markup and getting them posted. My statement is that "I will not > admin techdocs if it's CVS based and not CMS based." I will volunteer. Specifically, I will volunteer to admin techdocs regardless of whether it is CVS, CMS, or something else. I think that myself and some others are more than willing to do the work to convert and submit the articles. Let's keep using CVS right now, and investigate something CMS-based for later use. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200304252101 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html iD8DBQE+qdqmvJuQZxSWSsgRAjCwAKC2ADxbkrHE6vDrSKJmwC0F4hw/cwCgzhAC Qza8GIqNbCILJ3pGWFCcuzs= =Qr6r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greg, > I will volunteer. Specifically, I will volunteer to admin techdocs regardless > of whether it is CVS, CMS, or something else. I think that myself and some > others are more than willing to do the work to convert and submit the articles. > Let's keep using CVS right now, and investigate something CMS-based for later use. Uh, we're not using CVS right now, as far as I know. But you are the big cheese as of now. Have fun! We may put together a pgWiki soon, and the you can give it a try. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco