On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 10:25 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > Karsten Wade said the following on 06/25/2009 03:42 PM Pacific Time: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 06:13:22PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've volunteered to help kick off and facilitate the Fedora cross-team > >> CMS (Zicula) planning and implementation meetings. I think things will > >> work best if each team puts forth a representative. > > > > It is not clear in your email to the various teams what the CMS scope > > is. > > I understood the scope to have been previously defined. > > I'm coming to this at the request of a few people who asked me to help > with the "project management" part of "completing the whole thing" and > making sure all the different interested and affected groups have a > voice and a venue to participate. So I'm admittedly arriving late with > the understood goal of helping to facilitate the process of GTD (getting > things done). > > Eric C. and David N., do I have a correct understanding of what you want > my help with? > > > > AIUI, the scope still is this: > > > > 1. Zikula is rolling out to cover docs.fp.o; > > 2. We need Websites, Design, Infra teams help with that; > > 3. All teams should be aware that we are seriously considering Zikula > > for covering other Fedora CMS needs, such as fedoraproject.org/*. That looks like a definitive list of things that need to happen. Each group would have a piece of the puzzle. > > > > Otherwise it sounds as if we are rolling Zikula under other parts of > > fp.org. Supposedly there are other groups that want to use Zikula as a solution to their problems. By us getting our work done first we should make it a lot easier for them to roll out their solutions as all the art work would have been completed, infrastructure would know how to properly roll out and manage an instance, and the Docs Team would have documented use of the CMS. > > > > If that is actually the case, we should make that clear instead. > > I was under the impression this was already understood on the different > teams since representatives from each team would come to the meetings. > How can I be clearer about the purpose? > > >> We will hold our > >> meetings on IRC or over Fedora Talk a > > > > IRC++ > > > > IRC seems to be the overwhelming winner. IRC it is. Maybe Gobby for managing notes (in which we could use that IRC-like chat)? > > John > Thanks John, Eric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
