As mentioned yesterday, I wrote a browser-based editor for the "static" pages on the ALUG site. You can now access this by following the instructions on http://www.alug.org.uk/background/submissions.html Does anyone have time to knock up a smarter way to link it from all pages than visiting each file by hand (sed? perl?)? Help updating the site gleefully received. Email me about any editor bugs you find and I'll deal with them ASAP. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
As mentioned yesterday, I wrote a browser-based editor for the "static" pages on the ALUG site. You can now access this by following the instructions on http://www.alug.org.uk/background/submissions.html
Does anyone have time to knock up a smarter way to link it from all pages than visiting each file by hand (sed? perl?)?
Should be reasonably easy to knock up some sed or awk to do that, but it'd be *much* better if the whole site was properly templated as apposed to the mismatch that it is now... also, the design is starting to show it's age, we could redesign the site and seperate content from layout (as it should be). Cheers, -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
Brett Parker wrote:
it'd be *much* better if the whole site was properly templated as apposed to the mismatch that it is now... also, the design is starting to show it's age, we could redesign the site and seperate content from layout (as it should be).
In that case, would it be a good idea to go right back to the drawing board and have a discussion about exacly what we want on the site and what we want it to do? I guess then it would make it easier to decide what system to use to sit behind it all. -- Dave Briggs linux@davebriggs.net | http://davebriggs.net | http://palimpsest.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Briggs <linux@davebriggs.net> wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
it'd be *much* better if the whole site was properly templated as apposed to the mismatch that it is now... also, the design is starting to show it's age, we could redesign the site and seperate content from layout (as it should be).
In that case, would it be a good idea to go right back to the drawing board and have a discussion about exacly what we want on the site and what we want it to do? I guess then it would make it easier to decide what system to use to sit behind it all.
Sounds like a plan to me... So, what *do* we need from the alug website? How about: * consistant look across the site * simple to edit pages (OK - MJ Ray's CGI starts at this goal, but it would be *so* much easier if the template wasn't included in that edit box) * well defined sections Basically, I'd like to see the whole site *almost* a wiki, but more closely modelled on CMS software, with a staging area for new content, and a simple to use interface for editors/administrators. I want the template split from the actual content, at the moment creating a new page is a PITA, and takes some effort, the 'template' file doesn't really exist as such, and I believe that the current look could be improved on. So, lets collect together a bunch of thoughts on this 'ere mailing list, and then lets start building something that actually works as we want/need it to, and can be expanded upon later. Thanks, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRBW/Eh8oWxevnjQRAu1EAJwNhZT164aBsMkhwYE/zNVJF2XkOgCgqdEp bpPm10eTZSyK0qC2KgR6++M= =qXoj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brett Parker wrote:
Sounds like a plan to me... So, what *do* we need from the alug website? How about: * consistant look across the site * simple to edit pages (OK - MJ Ray's CGI starts at this goal, but it would be *so* much easier if the template wasn't included in that edit box) * well defined sections
Yes, all that makes perfect sense. MJ's CGI does work really well, but the problem with having the template stuff in there is that it is a little too easy for something to go wrong! Shropshire LUG have quite a nice deign, ignoring the flash animation at the top... [ http://shropshire.lug.org.uk/ ]
Basically, I'd like to see the whole site *almost* a wiki, but more closely modelled on CMS software, with a staging area for new content, and a simple to use interface for editors/administrators. I want the template split from the actual content, at the moment creating a new page is a PITA, and takes some effort, the 'template' file doesn't really exist as such, and I believe that the current look could be improved on.
I think for adding content to the main site some sort of user admin is required to ensure that a standard of content is maintained. I think that is just something we would have to live with. Maybe some smaller areas could be a true wiki in nature. For example - why would someone who doesn't contribute to the mailing list or on any other level want to make changes to core site pages? I can imagine them wanting perhaps to contribute to a project page, or maybe a 'local' page dealing with a specific geographical area of 'Anglia'.
So, lets collect together a bunch of thoughts on this 'ere mailing list, and then lets start building something that actually works as we want/need it to, and can be expanded upon later.
Yeah, as much thought and planning at this stage will make things easier in the future. Perhaps when a few things become agreed a page could be started on the *old* wiki to document it all. Mind you, in that case perhaps we should find a way of password protecting it so that spammers can't mess things up... *aaaaargggghhh!* -- Dave Briggs linux@davebriggs.net | http://davebriggs.net | http://palimpsest.org.uk
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 19:28 +0100, Dave Briggs wrote:
Shropshire LUG have quite a nice deign, ignoring the flash animation at the top... [ http://shropshire.lug.org.uk/ ]
Didn't see the Flash because I am blessed with a 64bit build of Firefox that can't load a flash plugin...But yes I agree that is quite a nice looking site if we wanted to go the delegated responsibility route rather than a Wiki. The design looks really familiar, but this page http://shropshire.lug.org.uk/?pc=2005 Says it was custom built...I wonder if they would like to share it (or elements of it assuming we decided to go that route)
** Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com> [2005-10-06 00:55]:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 19:28 +0100, Dave Briggs wrote:
Shropshire LUG have quite a nice deign, ignoring the flash animation at the top... [ http://shropshire.lug.org.uk/ ]
Didn't see the Flash because I am blessed with a 64bit build of Firefox that can't load a flash plugin...But yes I agree that is quite a nice looking site if we wanted to go the delegated responsibility route rather than a Wiki.
The design looks really familiar, but this page http://shropshire.lug.org.uk/?pc=2005 Says it was custom built...I wonder if they would like to share it (or elements of it assuming we decided to go that route) ** end quote [Wayne Stallwood]
To me the site looks like a promising template with a lot of work to do. Looking down the resources and info/projects sections on the left I get an error on every one except the one on the website. The two new sections on the right are both giving errors too. All but two of the links in the menu at the top right work happily, the events one gives an error and the home link does nothing (except possibly reloading the page). Getting back to the website page the links to the tools used at the bottom of the page bring up annoying pop-up windows with no navigation bars (kiosk mode) and if you try to open them in a new tab/window yourself you get blocked by some javascript. All in all not a site I'd be in a rush to return to - although I'll admit that the page errors could be down to a back end database failure or something and they are waiting for someone to either spot, report or fix it. Much as I'm not a fan of Wikis I have to admit that the HantsLUG site has flourished having migrated to one. Before switching it was pretty much a dead site frequently in need of updating. Anyway, each to their own, and there's nothing to say that the Wiki concept works for every group of people (much like I dislike forums, and prefer mailing lists, but others are the reverse of that). As a quick aside it looks as though the Dorset LUG are heading Wiki wise too. It'll be interesting to see how their site develops. -- Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | http://www.aptanet.com
Dave Briggs <linux@davebriggs.net>
In that case, would it be a good idea to go right back to the drawing board and have a discussion about exacly what we want on the site and what we want it to do? I guess then it would make it easier to decide what system to use to sit behind it all.
I think you'll find that everyone will say they want the moon on a stick, but no-one will commit to holding that stick up for very long! What should go on the site? At the moment, there's three sections (background, meetings and venues) and some pages and subsites, some of which need updating, moving or culling. I don't like the suggestion that the whole site be a wiki. The wiki has been the most time-consuming part to maintain since it was introduced, it's been less and less useful and then it got thoroughly attacked when I'd not enough time to deal with it (so big thanks to Darren Casey and others for stepping in). I'd be delighted if it can be renovated, but I think it's not a good way to run the whole site. ALUG has a problem that when people get busy, they often get too busy to hand over tasks. If all webmasters of the current site die, it would just sit there, going out-of-date. If all webmasters of a wiki die, it usually gets exploited and trashed. I didn't consider a full CMS worthwhile for the main pages because: 1. There aren't that many pages and they do fairly simple jobs Evolution seemed a more efficient approach than revolution and we might develop something interesting. 2. The pages are already templated, but are stored on the server as xhtml, because it's faster, safer and there are a lot more tools which can work with it. To consider the self-referential link-adding script I asked about earlier: if it was CMSed, we'd probably need someone who can hack the template language or database structure in use. I will remove the template parts from the editor soon, as they do actually cause some "fun" problems with the WYSIWYGish editor. To do that, I may update the page template, because it'll be fastest/safest in the long run anyway. If someone has a new template design, please publish it. xhtml+css+accessibility really preferred. By the way, the Shropshire LUG site suggested as a nice design also has double navigation, error messages and "search-engine unfriendly" URLs - all things which don't happen much with xhtml files and they can be mirrored more easily, although we don't have mirrors just now. It's also a little cheeky not to link back to LUG.org.uk IMO. Yes, a fairly nice style, though. 3. Applications and subsites have been developed independently and hosted on the main site or other servers, which makes it easier to manage and limits our losses when someone uses an exploitable PHP web application or just goes flamey. ---- I'm probably getting ahead of the game, but someone started on tools before figuring out what the site needs to do. I welcome help and I'm irritated by wild guesses at how the site works, instead of reading the source or simply asking. I ask helpers to appreciate the reasons and experiences behind the site. Some of it's probably wrong and can be improved, but we need to be cautious about breaking things. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 00:53 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I think you'll find that everyone will say they want the moon on a stick, but no-one will commit to holding that stick up for very long!
This is a problem, I guess it's easy enough for us to get all excited about a new shiny site, but if nobody has enough spare time to sort it then we are better off fixing what we have for now.
What should go on the site? At the moment, there's three sections (background, meetings and venues) and some pages and subsites, some of which need updating, moving or culling.
I have mentioned it before but it was halfway down a post on an unrelated subject so I think it got ignored. Is the Wiki known to be broken at the moment ? I tried to edit the contrib area to add some kit and a venue type thing I can offer and I get Errors like this one Warning: fopen(./pages/archive/DemosOfferedDemosWanted): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/alug/web/contrib/lib/db_filesystem.php on line 104 Is the Wiki broken (intentionally or not) or am I doing something stupid (like not reading some instructions somewhere) I had the same problem the other week when I was trying to update the Library book list to reflect the location of the Online Library.
I don't like the suggestion that the whole site be a wiki. The wiki has been the most time-consuming part to maintain since it was introduced, it's been less and less useful and then it got thoroughly attacked when I'd not enough time to deal with it (so big thanks to Darren Casey and others for stepping in). I'd be delighted if it can be renovated, but I think it's not a good way to run the whole site.
Agreed.
ALUG has a problem that when people get busy, they often get too busy to hand over tasks. If all webmasters of the current site die, it would just sit there, going out-of-date. If all webmasters of a wiki die, it usually gets exploited and trashed.
Yes this is true, Often it is difficult for us to predict our workloads (or it is for me anyway) For example I have done far less with the Library than I had hoped, but I didn't know how busy I was going to be this year. I don't want to hand it over to someone else because I do have plans for it that eventually I will find time for.
By the way, the Shropshire LUG site suggested as a nice design also has double navigation, error messages and "search-engine unfriendly" URLs -
Fair points, I noticed the breakage after my last post, but I think the general concept of delegated responsibility for different pages may work. If the editing system was smooth enough that changes could be quickly made I would happily take responsibility for a few of the pages. Another thing I don't like much about Wiki's is that situation we had a while ago where some list member (can't remember who for sure) had put some derogatory comments about another lug and the resulting argument that broke out on the Lug.
Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com>
Warning: fopen(./pages/archive/DemosOfferedDemosWanted): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/alug/web/contrib/lib/db_filesystem.php on line 104
Is the Wiki broken (intentionally or not) or am I doing something stupid (like not reading some instructions somewhere)
All the wiki page files seem to be writeable by root only and I can't change that. I don't think it was intentional. Help! -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
MJ Ray wrote:
Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com>
Warning: fopen(./pages/archive/DemosOfferedDemosWanted): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/alug/web/contrib/lib/db_filesystem.php on line 104
Is the Wiki broken (intentionally or not) or am I doing something stupid (like not reading some instructions somewhere)
All the wiki page files seem to be writeable by root only and I can't change that. I don't think it was intentional. Help!
Ops sorry! I chown it back to alug.users. If there is anything I can do just let me know etc.. Darren
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:53:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I don't like the suggestion that the whole site be a wiki. The wiki has been the most time-consuming part to maintain since it was introduced, it's been less and less useful and then it got thoroughly attacked when I'd not enough time to deal with it (so big thanks to Darren Casey and others for stepping in). I'd be delighted if it can be renovated, but I think it's not a good way to run the whole site.
Just ask for help looking after the wiki then. I'd much rather see the whole site as a wiki as it would make editing it a whole bunch easier than having to send patches etc. which may or may not get applied in a timely fashion. I'd given up on editing the site a *long* time ago as the current system doesn't work. Even if we made a subset of the site a wiki that requires authorisation via a username/password (things like venue details, meeting times, faq etc. items that "legitimate" users wouldn't mind getting a login/password for) it would be a whole world better. At least once we were in that situation and had an rss feed (or similar) for the whole of the site then I for one would be happy to keep and eye on it as I'm sure others would too. The current incarnation has been too difficult to keep an eye on and maintain especially for people without direct access to the site. Thanks Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk>
Just ask for help looking after the wiki then.
That's not funny. I've been asking this list periodically for help looking after the wiki, since before it appeared in December 2001. (Thanks to everyone who has helped in the past, but people move on, some people only work on new things and more help is needed now.)
[...] easier than having to send patches etc. which may or may not get applied in a timely fashion. I'd given up on editing the site a *long* time ago as the current system doesn't work.
Why is it the professional sysadmins who are complaining loudest about the site? Surely you should have fewer problems with patches and maintainers than the writers who have successfully contributed to the site? I don't think this is about practical editing. I think this is about lust for shiny new toys, control and flaming someone you don't like. Please use something other than the core ALUG info pages as your plaything.
Even if we made a subset of the site a wiki that requires authorisation [...]
People seem divided about wikis and passwords. For now, I'll take up Al's renovation offer, because I think that can be done quickly, unless there's a good reason not to. -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk>
Just ask for help looking after the wiki then.
That's not funny. I've been asking this list periodically for help looking after the wiki, since before it appeared in December 2001.
(Thanks to everyone who has helped in the past, but people move on, some people only work on new things and more help is needed now.)
Well, if phpwiki actually had a decent revision history, it'd make it much much easier.
[...] easier than having to send patches etc. which may or may not get applied in a timely fashion. I'd given up on editing the site a *long* time ago as the current system doesn't work.
Why is it the professional sysadmins who are complaining loudest about the site? Surely you should have fewer problems with patches and maintainers than the writers who have successfully contributed to the site? I don't think this is about practical editing. I think this is about lust for shiny new toys, control and flaming someone you don't like. Please use something other than the core ALUG info pages as your plaything.
I have no problems with patches, other than the fact that they may or may not be applied, on a psuedo random basis, and that the scripts send the patch via e-mail to you personally, not a set of web masters... But hey, how could that *ever* be a problem, you've never had broken e-mail, right? and you've certainly never lost a legitimate mail before, have you? And, of course, it's a very high threshold for new contributors, it's a PITA for maintainance, and it could work a lot better... Maybe there should be another list? or at least an alias? admins@alug.org.uk or web@alug.org.uk or similar, and it should be noted somewhere reasonably prominant on the site.
Even if we made a subset of the site a wiki that requires authorisation [...]
People seem divided about wikis and passwords. For now, I'll take up Al's renovation offer, because I think that can be done quickly, unless there's a good reason not to.
phpwiki is a very broken wiki engine, it would be good to replace it with one of the (numerous) other wiki engines out there, current favourite for me is moinmoin, your milage may vary. Thanks, -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:31:29AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk>
Just ask for help looking after the wiki then.
That's not funny. I've been asking this list periodically for help looking after the wiki, since before it appeared in December 2001.
You never took up my offer of help, *shrug*, and it looks like you are wanting to troll+flame me again. How helpful. I note that you like to flame my opinions and suggestions but not other peoples. I think you need to stop taking this so personally and grow up and stop acting like a child and try to be a bit more constructive. I'm sure that whatever my opinion is you will decide to flame it just because you don't like me.
Why is it the professional sysadmins who are complaining loudest about the site? Surely you should have fewer problems with patches and maintainers than the writers who have successfully contributed to the site? I don't think this is about practical editing. I think this is about lust for shiny new toys, control and flaming someone you don't like. Please use something other than the core ALUG info pages as your plaything.
Sorry? I just want to be able to edit the site, many of my edits that have been sent to the person at the top have never been replied to or dealt with, when queried the maintainer had "email problems" or "was too busy". I have in the past helped others with the way the site was built etc. but I'd like to see a new easier system that doesn't take days or longer (sometimes never) to see updates to the site. I'm trying to make a suggestion and give an opinion so we can work around those problems and get *more* people involved. Your "control" suggestion is quite funny, as at the moment it seems that you are more worried that you will lose "control" of the core pages to others who you don't think worthy or capable of editing them. Now can you please stop ranting and try to stop causing nastiness on the Alug mailing list and think of ways we can move forwards instead of trying to carry out a personal vendetta? Thanks Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk>
Well, if phpwiki actually had a decent revision history, it'd make it much much easier.
That's nice, dear ;-) Do you think usemod and its revision history (as seen at HantsLUG) is decent? That's the current offer.
[...] patch via e-mail to you personally, not a set of web masters... But hey, how could that *ever* be a problem, you've never had broken e-mail, right? and you've certainly never lost a legitimate mail before, have you?
Have I lost email from you? The only ALUGger I know I've *lost* much email from ran several of the mailservers involved, while I don't run the servers for the addresses receiving. I think the problem probably wasn't with poptel (or pipex before)... ...This has given me another idea for an editme feature, though. (I did accidentally spam-trap a few ALUGgers last month, but I've rescued the emails and apologised.) Please, if you edit the site, it breaks and I don't answer, post to the list. There are always the superhero rescuers -:)
And, of course, it's a very high threshold for new contributors, it's a PITA for maintainance, and it could work a lot better...
Is it still very high with editme? The template hiding will be done. What could be done to lower it more? How do you know it's a PITA for maintenance? You're not maintaining. How do you know it could work a lot better? You don't seem to know how it works and it seems to nearly do your three *s from yesterday.
Maybe there should be another list? or at least an alias? admins@alug.org.uk or web@alug.org.uk or similar, and it should be noted somewhere reasonably prominant on the site.
Sure, it could be left to sit on a mailman moderator queue instead of my inbox, if you want. I don't mind. Anyone else? Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk>
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:31:29AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That's not funny. I've been asking this list periodically for help looking after the wiki, since before it appeared in December 2001.
You never took up my offer of help, *shrug*,
I'm not sure which offer you mean, but maybe I took up one which looked more promising at the time. You could still help out. No invitation is needed to edit the wiki.
and it looks like you are wanting to troll+flame me again. How helpful.
That's what I thought about your "suggestion".
I note that you like to flame my opinions and suggestions but not other peoples.
I think Brett should be slightly toasty warm too, but I don't think others are posting messages as annoying as yours.
I think you need to stop taking this so personally and grow up and stop acting like a child and try to be a bit more constructive. I'm sure that whatever my opinion is you will decide to flame it just because you don't like me.
It's not personal beyond my past bad experiences on teams with you. It's far more from frustration that you keep posting claims to know how I feel or think or what I'm aiming for or whatever, about stuff I've never told you. It's childish that you keep trying to make this entirely personal. I don't like some of your past work, but we could still collaborate.
Why is it the professional sysadmins who are complaining loudest about the site? [...] Please use something other than the core ALUG info pages as your plaything.
Sorry? I just want to be able to edit the site, many of my edits that have been sent to the person at the top have never been replied to or dealt with, when queried the maintainer had "email problems" or "was too busy".
Can you substantiate those quotes, please? I'm not sure who said those to you. There are pages which need retagging as unmaintained and I know you've had unusual difficulty exchanging email with me in the past. With the editme CGI, it's the alug server sending me email to a private mailbox, so it shouldn't happen and I've also another idea that will make it even safer soon.
[...] I have in the past helped others with the way the site was built etc. but I'd like to see a new easier system that doesn't take days or longer (sometimes never) to see updates to the site.
Is a day or two to update a listing really so terrible? For stuff that is more dynamic, there's the wiki for developing it.
I'm trying to make a suggestion and give an opinion so we can work around those problems and get *more* people involved.
Yes, lots of opinion, many "it would be good if ..." suggestions and very few posts seeking the background information to inform those opinions, or committing to action. It's like only talking, without listening or doing. I do find that problematic and I want to encourage others to help rather than pontificate.
[...] as at the moment it seems that you are more worried that you will lose "control" of the core pages to others who you don't think worthy or capable of editing them.
Hardly. I have never published ftp, ssh or cvs committer (when it was running) details, but that's because there are levels of trust and things do get abused. Access is shared (I think there's never been only one uploader since I took the site over), but I am trying to be the public face again now. Earlier today, you wrote in support of needing *all* contributors to have usernames and passwords, which seems considerably less open than the current site. What do you expect me to think? It does look like you should be content with the current access controls, but you're not, so maybe it's personal?
Now can you please stop ranting and try to stop causing nastiness on the Alug mailing list and think of ways we can move forwards instead of trying to carry out a personal vendetta?
Things are moving forwards and the personal vendetta seems mostly from your side: you seem unable to keep daft comments on my messages to yourself. I don't mind questions (and there are no stupid questions) but I do get irritated about misdirection of casual observers with suggestions of things which are either already done, or unrealistic with current resources. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk>
Well, if phpwiki actually had a decent revision history, it'd make it much much easier.
That's nice, dear ;-) Do you think usemod and its revision history (as seen at HantsLUG) is decent? That's the current offer.
Would be fine, anything that actually kept a revision history would make it easier. I see that is a "current offer", no consideration of pointers, and no scope for change later... who died and made you "God"? Do we *really* only have you to rely on to keep the site up and running and up to date, and only you with the power to 'innovate'?
[...] patch via e-mail to you personally, not a set of web masters... But hey, how could that *ever* be a problem, you've never had broken e-mail, right? and you've certainly never lost a legitimate mail before, have you?
Have I lost email from you? The only ALUGger I know I've *lost* much email from ran several of the mailservers involved, while I don't run the servers for the addresses receiving. I think the problem probably wasn't with poptel (or pipex before)...
Yes, but I can't remember when off the top of my head, or what the mail was, but I *do* know that you have lost mail from me in the past.
...This has given me another idea for an editme feature, though. (I did accidentally spam-trap a few ALUGgers last month, but I've rescued the emails and apologised.)
Or at least the ones that you've spotted...
Please, if you edit the site, it breaks and I don't answer, post to the list. There are always the superhero rescuers -:)
Erm, but we *can't* edit the site so that it breaks, we haven't that power, or even anything approaching a good delegation scheme, all patches get sent to you, therefore you have decided to take the responsibility entirely.
And, of course, it's a very high threshold for new contributors, it's a PITA for maintainance, and it could work a lot better...
Is it still very high with editme? The template hiding will be done. What could be done to lower it more?
What can I say... I don't like editing HTML in a text box on a web page, and I trust WYSIWYGish editors about as far as I can throw them. And what, exactly, does editme solve? other than "it's another way that a patch can be sent to a *single* admin, that may or may not respond to it, include it, or do something useful with it".
How do you know it's a PITA for maintenance? You're not maintaining.
I've dealt with manual patches several times, dear. No, as stated previously, I have no ability to maintain it, even if I had access to maintaining the site, I still wouldn't get other peoples patches BECAUSE THEY GO TO YOUR PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESS, which you have stated, several times. Can you not see a problem with that? Are you really that narrow minded?
How do you know it could work a lot better? You don't seem to know how it works and it seems to nearly do your three *s from yesterday.
Maybe there should be another list? or at least an alias? admins@alug.org.uk or web@alug.org.uk or similar, and it should be noted somewhere reasonably prominant on the site.
Sure, it could be left to sit on a mailman moderator queue instead of my inbox, if you want. I don't mind. Anyone else?
Note that the word alias was also used, but I see you didn't comment on that, interesting. So, rather than sitting in your inbox, how about actually sitting in more than one persons inbox? How about actually letting people have some responsibility?
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk>
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:31:29AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That's not funny. I've been asking this list periodically for help looking after the wiki, since before it appeared in December 2001.
You never took up my offer of help, *shrug*,
I'm not sure which offer you mean, but maybe I took up one which looked more promising at the time. You could still help out. No invitation is needed to edit the wiki.
and it looks like you are wanting to troll+flame me again. How helpful.
That's what I thought about your "suggestion".
I note that you like to flame my opinions and suggestions but not other peoples.
I think Brett should be slightly toasty warm too, but I don't think others are posting messages as annoying as yours.
Nope - I do not feel toasty warm, I'm somewhat disappointed by your attitude, though, and I really don't understand why you are being overly protective of a system that appears, at least on face value, to only have one "administrator"... lets play the bus game, shall we?
Can you substantiate those quotes, please? I'm not sure who said those to you. There are pages which need retagging as unmaintained and I know you've had unusual difficulty exchanging email with me in the past. With the editme CGI, it's the alug server sending me email to a private mailbox, so it shouldn't happen and I've also another idea that will make it even safer soon.
'make it even safer'? and again... it's going to *your* private e-mail...
Is a day or two to update a listing really so terrible? For stuff that is more dynamic, there's the wiki for developing it.
That's a day or two if you've got access to the interweb, and a spare moment... Anyways - this is rapidly getting out of hand, an over defensive MJ Ray, a website that could at the minimum use a face lift. I note that the site says... "When you click Save, the change will be emailed to a webmaster for approval and upload." Which suggests that it may go to more than one webmaster, when you've already told us that it goes to your private e-mail. Nice. Are you honestly saying that the current situation is correct? and that you wouldn't like to see something slightly more tuned to actually being administered by more than one person? *Sigh*, -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk>
[...] I see that is a "current offer", no consideration of pointers, and no scope for change later... who died and made you "God"?
I've considered pointers, discussed it with people and mentioned some thoughts on-list, inviting feedback. It can always be changed later. Who died and made you the Grand Inquisitor?
Do we *really* only have you to rely on to keep the site up and running and up to date, and only you with the power to 'innovate'? [...]
No, I'm but one part of a collaboration.
Yes, but I can't remember when off the top of my head, or what the mail was, but I *do* know that you have lost mail from me in the past.
Are the lurkers supporting you by email, or did you lose those too?
Please, if you edit the site, it breaks and I don't answer, post to the list. There are always the superhero rescuers -:)
Erm, but we *can't* edit the site so that it breaks, we haven't that power, or even anything approaching a good delegation scheme, all patches get sent to you, therefore you have decided to take the responsibility entirely.
You can edit the site. It's a new service and I added it, so I took responsibility for it. To be honest, I didn't see a problem with that. Spamming the list with diffs seemed inappropriate. What do you want?
How do you know it's a PITA for maintenance? You're not maintaining.
I've dealt with manual patches several times, dear. No, as stated previously, I have no ability to maintain it [...]
So either stick to what you do know about or ask, please. [...]
Note that the word alias was also used, but I see you didn't comment on that, interesting. So, rather than sitting in your inbox, how about actually sitting in more than one persons inbox? How about actually letting people have some responsibility?
Oh for crying out loud! What would be the benefit of an alias when only one person is doing it? Are you just posting rhetoric?
Anyways - this is rapidly getting out of hand, an over defensive MJ Ray, a website that could at the minimum use a face lift.
Please, submit a new template instead of whining endlessly. It would be a useful contribution and not much karma is needed. If it's good, it will be obvious to everyone.
I note that the site says... "When you click Save, the change will be emailed to a webmaster for approval and upload." Which suggests that it may go to more than one webmaster, when you've already told us that it goes to your private e-mail. Nice.
Because "a" always means "more than one". <fx:facepalm />
Are you honestly saying that the current situation is correct?
I know there are problems, but I think it's as good as possible with available resources.
and that you wouldn't like to see something slightly more tuned to actually being administered by more than one person?
Yes. That'll be why there are four or five who can solve the bus problem. More generally, I'm not going to Build It and They Will Come. I'm not overly protective. Exasperated. Frustrated. Amazed at your repetition and brass neck. Pass the hacksaw, someone.
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk>
<snip />
Erm, but we *can't* edit the site so that it breaks, we haven't that power, or even anything approaching a good delegation scheme, all patches get sent to you, therefore you have decided to take the responsibility entirely.
You can edit the site. It's a new service and I added it, so I took responsibility for it. To be honest, I didn't see a problem with that. Spamming the list with diffs seemed inappropriate. What do you want?
No, I *can't* edit the site, I can put forward new content, in the form of a diff, that then gets processed by one seriously over-worked developer who appears to currently be taking everything in the world far too seriously...
How do you know it's a PITA for maintenance? You're not maintaining.
I've dealt with manual patches several times, dear. No, as stated previously, I have no ability to maintain it [...]
So either stick to what you do know about or ask, please.
Well, go on then, enlighten us? Tell us oh great one just what is involved... or document it somewhere and throw us a URL...
Note that the word alias was also used, but I see you didn't comment on that, interesting. So, rather than sitting in your inbox, how about actually sitting in more than one persons inbox? How about actually letting people have some responsibility?
Oh for crying out loud! What would be the benefit of an alias when only one person is doing it? Are you just posting rhetoric?
That's because currently other people either: * don't have access to the site in that way * don't feel comfortable enough to take it on because of the way that you come across as being defensive of the maintainance of the site.
Anyways - this is rapidly getting out of hand, an over defensive MJ Ray, a website that could at the minimum use a face lift.
Please, submit a new template instead of whining endlessly. It would be a useful contribution and not much karma is needed. If it's good, it will be obvious to everyone.
Fair enough, I'm sure that there's also some better designers than me on the list... I wonder why they haven't thought about doing something about it? So, on this note... if there are any designers out there that want to have a crack at doing a design for the alug website, please do. I'll throw something together when I've got a spare few hours also. Maybe we could make it in to a competition? Winner's design gets used... <snip />
Are you honestly saying that the current situation is correct?
I know there are problems, but I think it's as good as possible with available resources.
Doesn't this lead to the question of "why are the available resources so limited"? In which case, maybe this needs to be addressed more fully...
and that you wouldn't like to see something slightly more tuned to actually being administered by more than one person?
Yes. That'll be why there are four or five who can solve the bus problem. More generally, I'm not going to Build It and They Will Come.
Right - the four or five people know how the system work, in full?
I'm not overly protective. Exasperated. Frustrated. Amazed at your repetition and brass neck. Pass the hacksaw, someone.
And there was me being amazed at your repetition and brass neck, interesting isn't it. Friendly, -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
Techincal question:
Anyways - this is rapidly getting out of hand, an over defensive MJ Ray, a website that could at the minimum use a face lift.
Please, submit a new template instead of whining endlessly. It would be a useful contribution and not much karma is needed. If it's good, it will be obvious to everyone.
What would the template need to match in terms of techincal spec - from this i mean does the engine (which I'm not familiar of what it is) allow multiple styles, does it need to have particular tags etc ... Im sure if this information where more availible, then a template from some of our more graphical and less techincal members would be an more interesting challange. JT ps.. wtf is a brass neck?
James Taylor <james.taylor@stealthnet.net> wrote:
Techincal question:
Anyways - this is rapidly getting out of hand, an over defensive MJ Ray, a website that could at the minimum use a face lift.
Please, submit a new template instead of whining endlessly. It would be a useful contribution and not much karma is needed. If it's good, it will be obvious to everyone.
What would the template need to match in terms of techincal spec - from this i mean does the engine (which I'm not familiar of what it is) allow multiple styles, does it need to have particular tags etc ...
Basically, the template needs to address the technical issues of the site, and look pretty... so, somewhere to have the main content, a place for a menu, a place to list sponsors, somewhere to put copyright information... that sort of thing.
Im sure if this information where more availible, then a template from some of our more graphical and less techincal members would be an more interesting challange.
If someone drew a pretty picture, I'd be more than happy to chop it up and code the XHTML+CSS for it :) Thanks, -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
James Taylor <james.taylor@stealthnet.net>
What would the template need to match in terms of techincal spec - from this i mean does the engine (which I'm not familiar of what it is) allow multiple styles, does it need to have particular tags etc ...
It needs a div#main in the body, with title and space for the meta tags in the head, which will be filled with the page contents. There's a whole soup of tags, but all inside div#main (so you should still be able to style it differently should you wish). It needs to be xhtml and preferably using css and being accessible. I'm not sure what you mean by "allow multiple styles" there.
ps.. wtf is a brass neck?
I believe it was a brass ring used to stop your neck being crushed when the mob lynched you, so you could be nasty, yet still survive their revenge! They were painful and unreliable. -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
MJ Ray wrote:
James Taylor <james.taylor@stealthnet.net>
What would the template need to match in terms of techincal spec - from this i mean does the engine (which I'm not familiar of what it is) allow multiple styles, does it need to have particular tags etc ...
It needs a div#main in the body, with title and space for the meta tags in the head, which will be filled with the page contents. There's a whole soup of tags, but all inside div#main (so you should still be able to style it differently should you wish).
It needs to be xhtml and preferably using css and being accessible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "allow multiple styles" there.
http://www.accessanet.com/modern/styleswitcher.html <-- has a version of what I am thinking about - there is a way of doing this in pure css wthout reloading the page however... Jt
James Taylor <james.taylor@stealthnet.net> wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
James Taylor <james.taylor@stealthnet.net>
What would the template need to match in terms of techincal spec - from this i mean does the engine (which I'm not familiar of what it is) allow multiple styles, does it need to have particular tags etc ...
It needs a div#main in the body, with title and space for the meta tags in the head, which will be filled with the page contents. There's a whole soup of tags, but all inside div#main (so you should still be able to style it differently should you wish).
It needs to be xhtml and preferably using css and being accessible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "allow multiple styles" there.
http://www.accessanet.com/modern/styleswitcher.html <-- has a version of what I am thinking about - there is a way of doing this in pure css wthout reloading the page however...
That's just your bog standard style sheet switcher, there's lots of things like that, to accomodate for IE you have to use some javascript to make the other stylesheets available, firefox will cheerfully let you select the alternative stylesheet from it's menus... Looks like that site doesn't actually use the usual method of <link rel="alternate stylesheet" href="pathtotheotherstylesheet" type="text/css">, which can then easily be used with some evil javascript in IE, and just works in more modern browsers. So, basically, if you have a design in mind, or 2, then maybe we should decide on what the basic classes for the template maybe? Maybe we need to decide on what the content is going to be also? Thanks, -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:20:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Earlier today, you wrote in support of needing *all* contributors to have usernames and passwords, which seems considerably
Uh, no I didn't. I said only for a subset of pages. To be honest, all I was saying was that Alan Popes suggestion seemed best so far imho. You flamed me for that and said I was being annoying for agreeing with someone. Each to his own, I know who has annoyed me the most so far this year, maybe I should give a prize.
Things are moving forwards and the personal vendetta seems mostly from your side: you seem unable to keep daft comments on
*cough* Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
participants (8)
-
Adam Bower -
Brett Parker -
Darren -
Dave Briggs -
James Taylor -
MJ Ray -
Paul Tansom -
Wayne Stallwood