|
| From: | Richard Thompson |
| Subject: | Re: [Dfey-nw-discuss] Re: DFEY website redesign |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:06:31 +0100 |
On 2009-07-15, Tim Dobson wrote:It seems to me that it would be better to separate off the e-mails about
> Robert Leverington wrote:
>> On 2009-07-13, Tim Dobson wrote:
>>> Lets start with mailing lists.
>>>
>>> Hopefully, lists would be provided by the Savannah project,
>>> www.nongnu.org - mailman servers are really really hard to run well
>>> and the guys at Savannah do a great job at making our lives as easy
>>> as possible.
>>>
>>> We should be able to, on request, set up new mailing lists for new
>>> localgroups (hopefully dfey-*-discuss format).
>>>
>>> I think there should be a dfey-general-discuss for general
>>> non-geographical discussion and perhaps dfey-admin-discuss for
>>> non-geographic administration boringness. :)
>>
>> This makes sense to me, maybe avoid dfey-admin-discuss for now as we are
>> not at the stage where there is such a high volume that this is
>> distracting.
>
> Hmmm. well I'm begginng to notice that the people who don't filter their
> mail - people who use hotmail for instance - aren't really looking at
> emails because there are so many and most of them aren't relevant for
> people who just want to meet each other and aren't really interested in
> getting involved in any organisation aspects.
>
> I think the sooner we can get administration discussions onto an opt-in
> mailing list, the better. :)
>
> As mailing lists are a priority, I should really sort this ASAP.
meetups on to separate list also in this case. For example have
dfey-nw-meetups, dfey-se-meetups, etc. Perhaps in conjunction with
dfey-admin-discuss and, of course, dfey-nw-discuss, and dfey-se-discuss.
Under your scheme there would still have to be admin stuff for
individual branches going to people who don't want it.
This is my thought too, I was just echoing the general consensus from
>>> DFEY.org
>>>
>>> The DFEY.org home page would be fairly simplistic, concise and low on
>>> text content, linking one to several other main pages (again,
>>> concise, small amounts of text) and a "more" page containing links
>>> other content.
>>>
>>> On the three main pages, perhaps we would describe DFEY, talk about
>>> local groups and mention how you can get involved. (The last two seem
>>> very similar - maybe not those two!)
>>
>> Something simillar was discussed, but the general consensus was that
>> there would not be sufficient content to span multiple pages - at least
>> for the time being. This is always something that can be added on
>> eventually.
>
> There's plenty to write about!
>
> I mean, if I can talk about DFEY for 20+ minutes without notes, then I
> think we can write what would amount to 1/2 a page of A4 across three
> pages. How should people find out information about why we exist or what
> DFEY's here for or how to get involved and help out?
IRC. Whatever CMS we choose will allow multiple pages so it's hardly
difficult to implement either way once we actually have a site.
As I have said, I would happily take on the role of maintaining whatever
>>> *.dfey.org or dfey.org/
>>>
>>> In my opinion, local groups should have their own web presence. It
>>> shouldn't be forced, but a local DFEY group in Kent and in Glasgow,
>>> as much as they might all wish to meet face to face, probably aren't
>>> going to, and would probably like to design their own region
>>> specific DFEY sites.
>>
>> This is fair enough, probably something for individual groups to focus
>> on of course. For now I don't think this should be a priority as it can
>> easily be added at any time.
>
> Absolutely, it's not a priority, but the principle is the really the bit
> that is important.
>
>>> Wiki's
>>>
>>> I don't know about wiki's. Wiki's are great for adding ideas to,
>>> collaborating on stuff, planning meeting, discussing stuff...
>>> But you have to work VERY hard to make them work as a homepage as the
>>> important info gets hidden in links that don't appear too be
>>> obvious.
>>> I can see the benefits for having a unified wiki for local groups,
>>> but at the same time there's a lot to be said for running one's own.
>>>
>>> The DFEY-NW wiki needs a cleanup; there is no doubt about that.
>>
>> As you say running a wiki involves a significant amount of work, and I
>> doubt there will be people in every DFEY branch that enjoy that sort of
>> thing.
>
> Running a wiki is easy. Actually tidying the wiki is the timeconsuming
> bit. One online community I have been involved in openmoko.org actually
> hired someone full time to cleanup the wiki, at the same time, maybe it
> shouldn't be cleared up in DFEY's case - notes about stuff don't really
> benefit from a 3rd party jumping in and suggesting that their page &
> link structure is semantically wrong.
wiki we decide to use in terms of content (and I wouldn't exactly call
myself a "3rd party", for what its worth). At the moment the DFEY-NW
wiki does not have any real structure (something I've tried to ensure
from the start with DFEY-SE), and is a mix of outside facing content,
and internal meta stuff.
As I have said, it takes a lot of effort to actually maintain a wiki and
>> There is also not a huge amount of content that would be unique
>> to each wiki. With this in mind I think it makes sense to have a single
>> wiki.
>
> Well I don't know, I think if you start looking at it from a local
> level, then it's not necessarily desirable...
you need someone who is willing to spend a significant amount of time
keeping it in order and dealing with any vandalism. Something that
won't neccesserily be persent in every single branch, and I've seen many
times before wikis that are not usable at all because of this. MediaWiki
has an enormous feature set which makes organising content in to
different local groups quite possible.
We can essentially do anything we want, so yes - this is possbile and
>> There was talk about using the DFEY-SE wiki as a base for this
>> and gradually moving content from the DFEY-NW wiki (and actually keeping
>> it in a nice condition this time). I'm happy for this to happen, and
>> will gladly take responsibility for keeping it in shape, what does
>> everyone else think?
>
> Maybe have it a bit like the fsf groups wiki?
>
> http://groups.fsf.org
>
> The lower bits are essentially organised but its up to you how you mess
> up your actual patch?
I'd be happy to help implement it on whichever wiki we decide to
designate as the primary one.
Robert
>>> Logo's
>>>
>>> I imagined dfey.org using the vanilla DFEY logo and local groups
>>> using a template of the logo with then the region they revolve
>>> around underneath in text. Take a look at this page to see what I
>>> mean.
>>> http://nw.dfey.org/wiki/Press_resources
>>
>> Seems to already be implemented. :)
>
> Yup! thanks for doing that!
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |