[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Moving the LedgerSMB.org website

Hi all;

I figured I should at some point add my voice to this.

First, I think it is important that we have, as a community, a strong level of control over the site, and the fact is that being able to get Drupal modules, etc,. installed has been difficult here for some time.    Again, Command Prompt's contributions have been invaluable and I don't want to come across as minimizing them.  Without their involvement in both the software coding, design, web site, etc. we wouldn't be where we are today.

At the same time we have had a lot of infrastructure projects and such that we haven't been able to take on simply because of a lack of bandwidth on CMD's side, and this has been perpetual frustration I think on all sides including my understanding of some complaints of Josh's.  Some of these may be lower maintenance than the web site would be and just as (or nearly as) visible.  So I don't think a move necessarily significantly harms CMD's ability to be visible to those who are looking at LedgerSMB but haven't yet made up their minds.  The limitation as always is the amount of effort they can put into contributing and maintaining. and I don't think the current web site is a uniquely low hanging fruit in that regard.  Indeed there may be even lower hanging areas.

Extending the available bandwidth through allowing contributions to our infrastructure by long-term members of the community thus seems quite wise to me.  Josh hasn't commented here.  Since Josh hasn't commented here yet I don't really know what his priority in some of these projects might be.  However, we've wanted the opportunity to move off SF.net for list management for some time because of historical problems regarding some email providers (gmail being the one that has had the most issues).

In response to Robert, there are also a few reasons to have as much of the infrastructure be community hosted as possible, and look at Sourceforge as being primarily a content distribution provider.  Sourceforge's downloads  structure is such that it is easy to link these from an external CMS.  The question is largely one of maintaining the links.  One important aspect is that the more different pieces of infrastructure we have that are contributed by different individuals, the more it advertises the size and vitality of the community.  And while it may be possible to install some of this on the Sourceforge site, I the fact is that those of us on the core team have tended put coding as a higher priority than some nuts and bolts aspects of infrastructure management.  So I would just as soon accept contributions in this area from interested parties.

I think some ground rules are important however.  I think that it is extremely important to try to ensure that the core team have administrative rights to all official ledgersmb.org software projects, and I think it is important that we establish that those who are not able to continue must agree to transition the site to other hosting providers gracefully.  We would also need some assurance that there is at least some general protection against unforeseen circumstances, such as when we lost the LedgerSMB wiki on Leah Kubik's death.

Josh hasn't yet commented on this thread yet.  I would like to give him a few more days to make his opinion and interests known, given that he is on the core team, and talk about what steps can be taken to ease impacts that such a move would have.  However, I do think such a move would be good for the project.

Finally to all those who have offered to help with the web site, such offers are extremely welcome.  I would suggest making sure that we have ways of recognizing this effort, whether in the CONTRIBUTORS file or elsewhere.  This is an area we need to figure out.  What does everyone think about this?  What is the desired way to recognize such contributors?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers