On Monday 2005-05-16 08:13, Alan Dayley wrote:
> 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.
Official doesn't work.
_De facto_ is OK. Common, customary, generally accepted, or Steering
Committee Recommendation may be even closer.
> > 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.
This is admittedly a minor issue. It is mostly a matter of civic pride and
boosterism. (Baring co-location.)
> > 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.
Kevin Brown suggests that there may be no widespread access problem, or at
least that a statistically significant access problem has not been
satisfactorily demonstrated.
Obviously the first item of business is proving there exists an access
problem.
Assuming an access problem, what then would be the diagnostic process or fault
tree? Alan, I understand you are proposing that it is entirely plausible
that we could move the whole site to co-location and still have the same
intractable access 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.
Evidently the status of this item has changed since the last development
meeting.
> > 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.
Is Deru offering a server?
> > 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.
(Well, the purpose of the manifesto is not just solving the access issue. It
would be nice to have a group that "owns" the website.)
> > 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?
I think "appropriate migration to wiki" is something for the working group to
address.
I suspect there are areas where wiki technology would very much benefit the
current PLUG website functionality. I have not, however, analyzed specifics.
> > 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)
TO THE BARRICADES!!
(hopefully it won't come to that.)
> 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 don't see it as an issue of splintering the group. I see it as first
offering a competing product (if necessary) and second working within the
associational rather than corporate nature of PLUG.
> 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.
That is exactly what I am advocating, assuming that either no clear concensus
emerges within PLUG (eg moving off PostNuke is obviously controversial) or
strong disagreement with suggestions from the Steering Committee.
> 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
---------------------------------------------------
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)