On Monday 16 May 2005 12:58 am, Trent Shipley wrote:
> Whereas PLUG is not a formal legal entity, it cannot have a central
> policy. It follows that the idea there exists or can exist an official
> PLUG Website is absurd.
Perhaps "defacto" is the more proper word. The domain name
"plug.phoneix.az.us" has been used for years. Some don't like even that.
However, I would agree with Kevin in another post where he defines the
"official" site as the one that the group uses.
> I propose that a PLUG Website Reform Working Group form itself because
> the current PLUG Website at http://plug.phoenix.az.us/ is manifestly
> broken.
OK
> A) It is hosted outside of Maricopa County and even Arizona. This is
> minor insult to the Greater Phoenix area. More important, it has
> become inconvenient.
Yes, well, I'd like to see it local too. However, geographic location
"should" not matter to functionality. Perhaps in this case it does.
> B) The current site uses PostNuke, that has manifestly proven itself an
> unsatisfactory content management solution for PLUG's website.
It is restrictive. I know you cannot do what you want to do with the Web
Links portion.
> C) A significant number of internet users, specifically those on high
> speed internet cannot access the PLUG site. This is absolutely
> INTOLERABLE. The sweeping lack of access is itself entirely sufficient
> reason to discard the current host and if necessary the current domain
> name.
I think this problem needs to be solved. It remains to be proven, at
least to me, where the root cause lies. Three possible sources (host,
DNS, client ISP) have been proposed. Moving to a new host or even
abandoning the domain name is not guarenteed to solve an undefined
problem.
> The Website Working Group (WWG) shall take the following steps to
> remedy the dismal state of PLUG's current website.
>
> 1) The WWG will accept Deru's offer to provide colocation hosting free
> of charge.
This is already being pursued.
> 2) The WWG will (if necessary) solicit a server from another party to
> support the web site and other web services that PLUG and PLUG's
> charitable strategic partners may choose to provide.
Offers for this have or probably will be made. The Deru offer is the
front runner right now.
> 3) The WWG will move current content off of PostNuke, if possible to
> another FOSS content management solution.
I see PostNuke or not as a separate discussion over solving the access
issue. Once a root cause for the access problem is found, and is solved
(DNS correction, new host, whatever it takes) then we can discuss
changing the CMS. The remedy for the access problem may make changing
the CMS at the same time a good idea.
> 4) The WWG will migrate content to Wiki services when appropriate to do
> so.
You would rather see a wiki for the PLUG site? Would you prefer the
entire site be a wiki or would it be a subset of the site as a whole?
> 5) The WWG will make a good faith effort to work with the PLUG Steering
> Committee or other actors to migrate the existing PLUG website from its
> current host to the Deru box, ultimately pointing
> http://plug.phoenix.az.us/ to the Deru box's IP address(es).
>
> 6) The WWG will open a competing Deru hosted website if agents
> responsible for http://plug.phoenix.az.us/ cannot be persuaded to work
> toward the migration.
It's open rebellion then? Woo! This is getting good! ;^) (joking)
I'd suggest that it is not in the best interest of the group to create a
split in the group nor to threaten such at this point. The lack of
access problem is serious and must be addressed. Are you willing to
splinter the group because of it? Would splintering the group not be
more harmful than lack of access?
I assure you that the Steering Committtee sincerely states that each of us
is only one vote in the group. If the group conscensus is to do what
you propose here, the Steering Committee has neither the will nor the
power to "veto" such action. There is very little desire for power in
the Steering Committee, only a desire for stability and growth of
Linux/FS/OSS. Splitting the group will not be needed.
On the other hand, if someone wants to setup a website (wiki, mambo,
whatever) and campaign for a move to it, no one is stopping them. I
always say that PLUG is a "Free Software Project" and as such, if you
have an itch, scratch it. Just do it in a positive way ("My new site is
great, come try it. Let's use it!") instead of a negative way ("The
original site sucks. If "they" won't change it, let's abandon it."),
would be my request.
Alan
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)