openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raphael Bircher <>
Subject Re: Website Content plus Look and Feel Improvements
Date Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:26:21 GMT
Am 03.07.11 01:30, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Raphael Bircher<>  wrote:
>> Am 02.07.11 23:41, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>   OUCH! see below...
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher<>
>>>   wrote:
>>>   Yesterday I got tired of the look of people.mdtext in the project site.
>>>> It
>>>> was so 1990s. So, I've improved the look via css and adding defined
>>>> widths.
>>>> I guess I am volunteering for the item on
>>>> Several of us have been surveying the existing website on
>>>> several wiki pages mostly linked to from:
>>>> With over 140 "projects" in, it will be important to
>>>> agree
>>>> to a mapping which reduces the granularity by more than an order of
>>>> magnitude. The page http://projects.openoffice.**org/<>is
a good and clear
>>>> way to start - and pretty much fits the structure on
>>>> Project+Planning<>
>>>          • Product Development
>>>>         • Extension Development
>>>>         • Language Support
>>>>         • Helping Users
>>>>         • Distribution
>>>>         • Promotion
>>>> I think that these groupings will help us easily have a rule about which
>>>> projects end up on or stay on the
>>>> successor
>>>> http://*
>>>> Projects have "webcontent" and/or "wiki" content. On openoffice.orgthere
>>>> is a generally consistent look. There are exceptions which are marketing
>>>> sites like The difference is glaring because
>>>> that is the first big button on the main site.
>>>> Webcontent is available via svn - "svn co
>>>> Marcus Lange)
>>>   Some projects are huge and others small. I downloaded several:
>>>>   I think "infrastructure" which is the project for all aspects dealing
>>> with
>>> the development of the old web site itself could be thrown out completely,
>>> since, ta da, here we are in a new environment. And, much of that is VERY
>>> old. Ditto for much of the "download" area which goes back to the
>>> non-mirrors age.
>> The problem is, that we have many dead pages on the SVN. At Collabnet we
>> haven't the right to delete pages from the CVS. So many many unused site is
>> still on the SVN but you won't find it over the OOo webpage.
>>   It might be useful to take the domains list....
>>> OpenOffice+Domains<>
>>> and see what can be combined into your suggested categories below.  Maybe
>>> we
>>> could start something like this as a seperate item off the "To Do" list on
>>> the OOo-sitemap page. Oddly, some of these actual "virtual domains" are
>>> really part of the main website -- web~webcontent.
>> I have already done a sitemap for all projects. It's only 4 month old. I do
>> this sitemap for the kenai migration. I will upload the list. It's a line
>> separated textfile.
>>   The following page needs more fleshing out:
>>>   wave@minotaur:~/ooo-test$ ls -1
>>>> development
>>>> documentation
>>>> download
>>>> projects
>>>> www
>>>> The size is 2.7GB.
>>>> It would be good to come up with a scripted way to convert existing
>>>> webcontent to either mdtext, an altered html, or specialized javascript
>>>> and
>>>> css. It is likely we can adapt the content and use the Apache CMS to wrap
>>>> a
>>>> standard skeleton.
>>>>   Yes we need a script, but I think the Script can only do basic work. The
>> OOo Page is not so easy as it looks. Ther are many special features on the
>> kenai framework, and a load of JavaScript. I agree with Kai that we have to
>> be verry carefull.
>> Greatings Raphael
>> --
>> My private Homepage:
> OK, a totally different thought/approach.
> I think it might be easier in the long run to migrate the entire current OOo
> site in total (well except for maybe a few areas/projects) and deal with the
> revamping/reorg on a longer term basis -- culling out a bit at a time.
> I think trying to deal with this NOW will considerably slow site migration
> down, maybe even prevent it altogether and will considerably upset existing
> users I think.
> The biggest problem with this alternate approach, well really ANY approach,
> is that folks that formerly had commit rights to sites, won't, because they
> aren't committers. And now, with the (somewhat) recent migration to kenai,
> it's a bit difficult to tell what was going on before that.
> We should definitely think long term about migrating nearly all project home
> pages to a wiki for easier maintenance. I think much of this had already
> happened in actuality. People didn't want to deal with cvs/svn or anything
> even remotely "techie" to participate.
Ther is a webbased CMS on Apache at . Well it's 
not a rich CMS, but you can edit a page without using SVN and Command 
Line. I think cause the performance, a static page as main page is not a 
bad idea. Markdown is much easier as html and as I said above, you don't 
have to deal with svn for normal maintenance.

The problem that not all content developer has access to the Apache CMS 
is true. The problem is, that the ASF dosn't make a difference between 
Content Developer and Core Developer. At ASF that's the same status. 
Become a Commiter it's not a fast proces. First you have to fill ICLA, 
then you have to be voted in by PPMC, and finaly you have to wait for 
the apache account. At the OOo Project you have only ask a Project Lead 
for content defeloper right. Therefor you have access to the whole site 
at Apache OOo.

Greetings Raphael

My private Homepage:

View raw message