We are considering other CMS engines (Was:Re: PLUG site incident last night)

[Alan Dayley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Edward Norton wrote:
> PLUG cracked AGAIN? Not surprising considering you guys wont consider
> anything other than a badly coded PHP CMS.

I am not the most experienced of webmasters and perhaps these incidents
expose this starkly.  I do apologize to you and the group.

Efforts are underway to improve the website and other online
infrastructure for PLUG.  Back in the IRC "Town Hall" meeting on
November 29th, we made a call for people to join the plug-webdev email
list to work towards improved online structure and service.  (See the
IRC log linked from here:
http://plug.phoenix.az.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=115&Itemid=2)
 A group of individuals, most smarter than I on webmastering issues,
have been discussing, planning and working toward that end.  Progress is
much slower than some would want but progress is being made.

Aside from shoring up the current site to better usability for the
interim, the main focus of the effort has been to gather a wish list of
requested features and services.  A request for input from the group at
large was made in this very email list on December 18th for this very
purpose.  This weekend these requests will turn into a prioritized
requirements list for the new site.  The requirements will directly
effect the CMS or other website deployment method used.  Many have a
favorite possible engine but we have not entered that debate since the
requirements are not defined yet.

If you have opinions (Which you obviously do!) that you'd like to share,
I invite you to participate with suggestions and discussion.  You can do
that here but the plug-webdev email list or the PLUG web development
wiki is the better forum for collaboration on the project.

True, we are currently using Joomla!, considered by some to be "badly
coded."  But what the webdev group ends up using in a new site will not
be Joomla! by default.  *Any* website content management solution that
fills the requirements is up for consideration.

Alan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFlFl/DQw/VSQuFZYRAm/qAJ9IcXVk41B84UCZGSYwcBx3fE4MYQCffYI3
OciaU66xshLLlfPLi3uhO0k=
=b9Oa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----