Earlier today, Branko Collin wrote: > On 25 Nov 2001, at 13:27, Ed Halley wrote: >> 1. For community involvement, the main GIMP website really must be >> brought >> up to date. Most of the GIMP script links are stale or broken. >> Any whiff of "dead project" will turn off many people who would >> otherwise get involved and help GIMP grow. > > Lots of the broken links have been repaired recently. > Bugzilla.gnome.org will take your list of suggestions as to which > links need to be repaired.
I volunteered for fixing the broken links and outdated information on the current web site (until the new site is ready). If you see any broken link or incorrect stuff on some pages, please submit a bug report to Bugzilla. This is explained at the bottom of this page: http://www.gimp.org/webmasters.html
If you want to suggest more extensive changes for the web site, then the correct place to discuss that is the gimp-web mailing list. You can find the information about this list on the mailing lists page: http://www.gimp.org/mailing_list.html
> I find that suggestions from what clearly must be non-developers on > bugzilla.gnome.org get dealt with politely. The necessary info gets > coaxed out of these contributors in a well-mannered way. This is not > something we should take for granted! It is my experience that when > patience wears thin, politeness is the first thing out the window. > > Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to compliment > Raphael on the way he deals with bug reports.
Thanks, but I cannot be the only one taking credit for that. Several developers are taking care of Bugzilla on a regular basis. Recently, the main contributors have been Daniel, Sven, Mitch and myself. But Sven and Mitch are actually fixing the bugs, while Daniel and I are mostly verifying if the bug reports are valid and asking for more information if necessary (and submitting patches from time to time).
> The new gimp.org will in all probability have more sections for more > parts of the community. So far, gimp.org has been the prototypical > Corporate Website, the folder-on-the-net. Address and product > information you can get, but if you want support, communities, > downloads, what have you, you will have to look elsewhere. Gimp.org > at least did one better than most other corporate sites by at least > linking to all the elsewheres.
Yes. But maybe some of the links are not visible enough? Suggestions are welcome.
-Raphael
