Marcus Moeller wrote: > Good Evening it was till about 5 min back :D > I fully agree. In my the old-style website is obsolete and needs to be > re-worked. Either in wiki style (which I would prefer) or in > Puntal/XOOP or whatever. For me it's really unclear who (but Karanbir) > is responsible for the decision which core should be used. I feel that > this is something that has to be discussed. Absolutely, I am sure lots of people would like to visit the situation again. However when this was discussed last it was decided that a framework website that is able to handle the core functions would still exist at www.centos.org - with a large bulk of user end and community generated content would move into sub.sites. eg. wiki.centos.org ( which I started after that meeting ), a forums.centos.org ( which is in the process of startup, I am aware of the fact that we commited to kicking that off this month ), the lang.centos.org sites w.r.t core services, that would include the news section, info on the centos distro, the mirror network, all centos-admin related stuff and official docs ( eg. www.centos.org/docs/ ). The site would also manage and provide info on the packages setup, the mirror network and allow for any upstream project level contribution[1] into the distro and mirror.c.o. Also web based apps would live under the website [2]. To be completely honest, I've really not seen anything said so far that would indicate that the plan is a bad one. The one thing that keeps coming up is that plenty of people will rant on about the website and the state its in, but few will actually offer to do anything about it. Dag even goes to the extent of taking a dig at me for saying that if noone else is interested then I will try as soon as I am able to!! Not sure what thats about, I've known him for a while and he's never come across as such an idiot before. > There are a lot of community contributors and members that would like > to see a wiki based solution (with edit groups for non-public > sections, I would admit), so I wonder what's wrong with it? Nothing. No one is saying that the wiki must go away, its one of the things that is actively promoted. You guys need to step back a bit and think outside the box. Just fixing immediate issues is the reason why we are where we are at the moment. - KB [1]: I will have more news about this tomorrow. [2]: As an example: There was talk of a CentOS Network - running a server end provider for up2date that allowed some management. If you look, the C4 distro even contains references to that. However, everyone moving to yum and lack of resources at the time meant that it never got done. Which is fine.
