Hi,
This has become quite a convoluted thread (or threads) of which the gist to me seems to be that many Aluggers are unhappy with the state of the website and their inability to edit it.
I'm not sure how long the current site has been about, being a *fairly* new Alugger, but as Brett said in a previous email, the design is beginning to look a bit dated. Surely this thread is an ideal time to raise the subject of perhaps redesigning the site and trying to find a new way forward for the future web presence of Alug.
Another thing that should be discussed is who is going to take responsibility for the site. As far as I can tell many people would be interested in having a hand in the website, keeping it up to date, adding content, etc but no one has even been offered the chance. Surely by using some kind of CMS it will allow more people to contribute and keep the site up to date without having to rely on one person to patch the site.
Just my 2¢
Cheers
Dave
David Reynolds david@reynoldsfamily.org.uk
This has become quite a convoluted thread (or threads) of which the gist to me seems to be that many Aluggers are unhappy with the state of the website and their inability to edit it.
This thread is being distorted by a few posting a lot. Enumerate participants other than me, Brett and Adam: 1. Keith posted a question based on a problem; 2. Paul suggested a solution and asked a related question; 3. Laurie asked a related question; 4. Al offered to work on a solution, partly answering Paul; 5. Ben suggested a solution; 6. Ten asked related questions; 7. Dave tried to move the discussion forwards; 8. Wayne Stallwood suggested ideas and mentioned an immediate problem; 9. Jonathan McDowell answered a question; 10. Darren fixed the immediate problem.
I don't think it's safe to conclude that "many ALUGgers are unhappy" from that. Maybe they are, but it's not clear yet.
I'm not sure how long the current site has been about, being a *fairly* new Alugger, but as Brett said in a previous email, the design is beginning to look a bit dated. [...]
As I wrote earlier, please make a template that the metadata and div#main can be put into. I strongly prefer xhtml+css +accessibility. I'd love a new design.
Another thing that should be discussed is who is going to take responsibility for the site. As far as I can tell many people would be interested in having a hand in the website, keeping it up to date, adding content, etc but no one has even been offered the chance.
I've posted more calls for help than it's fun to count. I don't like pontification and I don't like inconsiderate "make it easy for me even if it makes it intolerably difficult for you" requests. Mostly, I've always tried to document, explain and make things easier as people explain the problems to me.
Of 10 people mentioned above, at least five have/are now contributed/ing to the site(s) in some way and I thank them for their help. More welcome. Just think of something to do, get rough consensus and let's see how to make it happen. I'm not Brett's "God", but I am taking care of the site for now.
Surely by using some kind of CMS it will allow more people to contribute and keep the site up to date without having to rely on one person to patch the site.
Why? We've tried some CMSes before, including one I advocated, and it allowed more people to ignore the site. It got into a mess faster. I don't see what stops that happening again. I think you're muddling the tasks of the site with the tools that let us perform those tasks.
There's no reason we are "having to rely on one person" but for all the flaming and idle suggestions, no-one else has yet offered to take the patches and develop some cooperation and trust.
Hope that helps,
On 6 Oct 2005, at 13:27, MJ Ray wrote:
David Reynolds david@reynoldsfamily.org.uk
This has become quite a convoluted thread (or threads) of which the gist to me seems to be that many Aluggers are unhappy with the state of the website and their inability to edit it.
This thread is being distorted by a few posting a lot. Enumerate participants other than me, Brett and Adam:
- Keith posted a question based on a problem;
- Paul suggested a solution and asked a related question;
- Laurie asked a related question;
- Al offered to work on a solution, partly answering Paul;
- Ben suggested a solution;
- Ten asked related questions;
- Dave tried to move the discussion forwards;
- Wayne Stallwood suggested ideas and mentioned an immediate problem;
- Jonathan McDowell answered a question;
- Darren fixed the immediate problem.
I don't think it's safe to conclude that "many ALUGgers are unhappy" from that. Maybe they are, but it's not clear yet.
OK, maybe I was reading between the lines BUT I and other people with whom I have discussed this topic with in IRC are unhappy with the site and the current way in which it is maintained.
I'm not sure how long the current site has been about, being a *fairly* new Alugger, but as Brett said in a previous email, the design is beginning to look a bit dated. [...]
As I wrote earlier, please make a template that the metadata and div#main can be put into. I strongly prefer xhtml+css +accessibility. I'd love a new design.
I agree with xhtml+css+accessibility, but why does it have to fit into the current framework? You seem to be cutting peoples suggestions of new developments by forcing them into using the already exisiting system.
Another thing that should be discussed is who is going to take responsibility for the site. As far as I can tell many people would be interested in having a hand in the website, keeping it up to date, adding content, etc but no one has even been offered the chance.
I've posted more calls for help than it's fun to count. I don't like pontification and I don't like inconsiderate "make it easy for me even if it makes it intolerably difficult for you" requests. Mostly, I've always tried to document, explain and make things easier as people explain the problems to me.
Of 10 people mentioned above, at least five have/are now contributed/ing to the site(s) in some way and I thank them for their help. More welcome. Just think of something to do, get rough consensus and let's see how to make it happen. I'm not Brett's "God", but I am taking care of the site for now.
Surely by using some kind of CMS it will allow more people to contribute and keep the site up to date without having to rely on one person to patch the site.
Why? We've tried some CMSes before, including one I advocated, and it allowed more people to ignore the site. It got into a mess faster. I don't see what stops that happening again. I think you're muddling the tasks of the site with the tools that let us perform those tasks.
What in your opinion are the tasks of the site?
There's no reason we are "having to rely on one person" but for all the flaming and idle suggestions, no-one else has yet offered to take the patches and develop some cooperation and trust.
I'd like to help bring the site more up to date. Where do I sign up?
Dave
David Reynolds david@reynoldsfamily.org.uk
OK, maybe I was reading between the lines BUT I and other people with whom I have discussed this topic with in IRC are unhappy with the site and the current way in which it is maintained.
I think only one of those from IRC contacted me, and I answered, and no-one mentioned it to me when I was there last Monday evening, nor left a memo. Sorry, but I'm no telepath and I don't IRC there much outside meetings because of a small clique. The IRC doesn't reflect ALUG, fortunately.
As I wrote earlier, please make a template that the metadata and div#main can be put into. I strongly prefer xhtml+css +accessibility. I'd love a new design.
I agree with xhtml+css+accessibility, but why does it have to fit into the current framework?
Because if it can cope with that, which is about as simple and portable as it gets, it should be adaptable to the main site, the planet, the wiki, the library, ...
You seem to be cutting peoples suggestions of new developments by forcing them into using the already exisiting system.
Maybe. I think it's unrealistic to change everything overnight, but if someone has time and commits to supporting it for the forseeable, do it, get consensus and we'll migrate. It's the caretaking part that causes problems. It's all well and good saying it's open and anyone could run it, but I'm not going to fight with someone else's tools if I find them awkward, so someone does have to say "yes, I'll take care of this".
Looking back in the archive, that's roughly how I ended up doing it, after problems with three or four sites before the current one. Last man standing. I'm stubborn.
What in your opinion are the tasks of the site?
I still want the same as I posted on Fri 12 Jan 2001: - Contact details - Link to mailing lists sign-up and archive - Meetings information - Meeting venues information - Pointers to new-user information - Link to library, blogs, ...
In the past, I invited articles and reviews, but I'm less keen now that blogs have taken off and we've lots of outdated pages. Maybe there are other things to do, but I'd like to see them happen elsewhere first and then get moved or linked as needed.
It's quite amusing to look back and see Brett flaming the first reply that suggested making the site use PHP and mySQL... :-) http://lists.alug.org.uk/main/2001-January/007898.html
There's no reason we are "having to rely on one person" but for all the flaming and idle suggestions, no-one else has yet offered to take the patches and develop some cooperation and trust.
I'd like to help bring the site more up to date. Where do I sign up?
No sign-up is required. For the current main site, you can either download a page, edit it and mail it to me, or stick /cgi-bin/editme.pl in the address just after org.uk/ and do it on the web. I'd appreciate a quick email after the first edit, so I can confirm it all worked for you.
Immediately, there's some dead links on http://www.alug.org.uk/background/getstarted.html that need replacing, and I remember complaints about http://www.alug.org.uk/venues/ and most of the stuff under http://www.alug.org.uk/articles/ except science could do with checking and linking in. Beyond that, it's checking and improving whatever you find. There's probably an infinite amount of work and new features and subsites are limited by imagination only.
If direct access is helpful, let me know what works well for you and we'll probably work something out soon. Others are involved and I think they've said they're flexible, but I'd like to double-check beforehand. Maybe it is time for an admin@alug. I thought it was suggested and rejected before. Anyone remember?
The other most-wanted things seem to be the library and wiki upgrade. People have offered to do those already, so I'd give it some time (or they can shout out here to get help).
Thanks,
On 6 Oct 2005, at 15:29, MJ Ray wrote:
David Reynolds david@reynoldsfamily.org.uk
OK, maybe I was reading between the lines BUT I and other people with whom I have discussed this topic with in IRC are unhappy with the site and the current way in which it is maintained.
I think only one of those from IRC contacted me, and I answered, and no-one mentioned it to me when I was there last Monday evening, nor left a memo. Sorry, but I'm no telepath and I don't IRC there much outside meetings because of a small clique. The IRC doesn't reflect ALUG, fortunately.
It reflects a subset of ALUG, and a fairly large subset at that. The discussions I was talking about have been going on concurrently with this list thread. I didn't expect you to know about it, I was telling you about it.
As I wrote earlier, please make a template that the metadata and div#main can be put into. I strongly prefer xhtml+css +accessibility. I'd love a new design.
I agree with xhtml+css+accessibility, but why does it have to fit into the current framework?
Because if it can cope with that, which is about as simple and portable as it gets, it should be adaptable to the main site, the planet, the wiki, the library, ...
Fair enough.
<snip />
What in your opinion are the tasks of the site?
I still want the same as I posted on Fri 12 Jan 2001:
- Contact details
- Link to mailing lists sign-up and archive
- Meetings information
- Meeting venues information
- Pointers to new-user information
- Link to library, blogs, ...
In the past, I invited articles and reviews, but I'm less keen now that blogs have taken off and we've lots of outdated pages. Maybe there are other things to do, but I'd like to see them happen elsewhere first and then get moved or linked as needed.
Do you think people are more likely to add reviews, articles, etc if they are able to easily add them themselves? What do other people think?
It's quite amusing to look back and see Brett flaming the first reply that suggested making the site use PHP and mySQL... :-) http://lists.alug.org.uk/main/2001-January/007898.html
That is 4 years ago before mySQL started to become vaguely good (IME) and before Brett was forced into using PHP and mySQL for developing sites at work.
There's no reason we are "having to rely on one person" but for all the flaming and idle suggestions, no-one else has yet offered to take the patches and develop some cooperation and trust.
I'd like to help bring the site more up to date. Where do I sign up?
No sign-up is required. For the current main site, you can either download a page, edit it and mail it to me, or stick /cgi-bin/editme.pl in the address just after org.uk/ and do it on the web. I'd appreciate a quick email after the first edit, so I can confirm it all worked for you.
How about if I come up with a basic design, shove some of the content in that already exists and see what people think? I would suggest that other people do similar, if they have time.
Immediately, there's some dead links on http://www.alug.org.uk/background/getstarted.html that need replacing, and I remember complaints about http://www.alug.org.uk/venues/ and most of the stuff under http://www.alug.org.uk/articles/ except science could do with checking and linking in. Beyond that, it's checking and improving whatever you find. There's probably an infinite amount of work and new features and subsites are limited by imagination only.
I'll have a look and see what I can do.
If direct access is helpful, let me know what works well for you and we'll probably work something out soon. Others are involved and I think they've said they're flexible, but I'd like to double-check beforehand. Maybe it is time for an admin@alug. I thought it was suggested and rejected before. Anyone remember?
admin@alug as in an email address? What would that be used for?
The other most-wanted things seem to be the library and wiki upgrade. People have offered to do those already, so I'd give it some time (or they can shout out here to get help).
It would be very nice (and I think it's been mentioned on-list) for the library to be intergrated into the main site a bit better. Not entirely sure how that would happen at the moment though.
Cheers,
Dave
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
It's quite amusing to look back and see Brett flaming the first reply that suggested making the site use PHP and mySQL... :-) http://lists.alug.org.uk/main/2001-January/007898.html
Wow - your definition of flame and everyone else's on the planet are fortunately very different. I'd like to know how you consider that a flame, also note that at that point I did not say PHP is evil (which I probably would now), or that he shouldn't use MySQL... I said that it would probably be worth looking at PostgreSQL.
But hey, thanks once again for mis-representing me.
Am I the only one on the list bored of this random rubbish?
-----Original Message----- From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brett Parker Sent: 06 October 2005 17:00 To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Web site - new editing method
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
It's quite amusing to look back and see Brett flaming the first reply that suggested making the site use PHP and mySQL... :-) http://lists.alug.org.uk/main/2001-January/007898.html
Wow - your definition of flame and everyone else's on the planet are fortunately very different. I'd like to know how you consider that a flame, also note that at that point I did not say PHP is evil (which I probably would now), or that he shouldn't use MySQL... I said that it would probably be worth looking at PostgreSQL.
But hey, thanks once again for mis-representing me.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 05:37:03PM +0100, Peter Bassill wrote:
Am I the only one on the list bored of this random rubbish?
You are most definitely not the only one!
Adam
Hey all
Something a bit more interesting to discuss, does anyone have any ideas on getting Linux onto an old Sun Sparc 2 workstation? I have gentoo working on my Ultra 60 but cant find any linux for non-ultra sparc machines. Any ideas?
Pete
Something a bit more interesting to discuss, does anyone have any ideas on getting Linux onto an old Sun Sparc 2 workstation? I have gentoo working on my Ultra 60 but cant find any linux for non-ultra sparc machines. Any ideas?
I have an Ultra 10 that I couldn't get gentoo to install onto. I've had more success with Debian though. I downloaded the latest - but it is still using the 2.4 kernel. Otherwise, it works very well. I tried the full download, but had some problems installing from the disks. However, but using the network install option (download the boot iso), this installed with no problems.
Stuart.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:20:39PM +0100, Peter Bassill wrote:
Something a bit more interesting to discuss, does anyone have any ideas on getting Linux onto an old Sun Sparc 2 workstation? I have gentoo working on my Ultra 60 but cant find any linux for non-ultra sparc machines. Any ideas?
I'm sure that Debian supports plain Sparc machines, have you tried giving it a go? If not i'm sure that http://www.ultralinux.org/ will have more details on running Linux on a plain Sparc (don't let the ultra part of the name deceive you, it covers normal Sparc too).
Thanks Adam
"Peter Bassill" peter.bassill@starliteassociates.com
Something a bit more interesting to discuss, does anyone have any ideas on getting Linux onto an old Sun Sparc 2 workstation? I have gentoo working on my Ultra 60 but cant find any linux for non-ultra sparc machines. Any ideas?
Does Sun Sparc 2 workstation = SPARCstation 2?
http://www.ultralinux.org/faq.html#q_2_1 suggests that's a sun4c system similar to the "pizzabox" SPARCstation that I installed debian onto some years ago (sun5.mth.uea.ac.uk I think, which might have been the one killed in a power supply overheat that nearly melted the monitor stand... messy). I'd start at http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/stable/sparc/
Good luck!
Thanks to all that replied.
I am now happily, if a little slowly, getting debian working on my Sun SparcStation 2, SparcStation 5 and SparcServer 20.
I never thought I would be breathing life into these beasties again. Amazingly, they still work after all these years.
Many thanks once again.
Peter
-----Original Message----- From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: 06 October 2005 21:47 To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Sun Machines
"Peter Bassill" peter.bassill@starliteassociates.com
Something a bit more interesting to discuss, does anyone have any
ideas
on getting Linux onto an old Sun Sparc 2 workstation? I have gentoo working on my Ultra 60 but cant find any linux for non-ultra sparc machines. Any ideas?
Does Sun Sparc 2 workstation = SPARCstation 2?
http://www.ultralinux.org/faq.html#q_2_1 suggests that's a sun4c system similar to the "pizzabox" SPARCstation that I installed debian onto some years ago (sun5.mth.uea.ac.uk I think, which might have been the one killed in a power supply overheat that nearly melted the monitor stand... messy). I'd start at http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/stable/sparc/
Good luck!
** MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop [2005-10-06 15:33]:
David Reynolds david@reynoldsfamily.org.uk
<snip>
You seem to be cutting peoples suggestions of new developments by forcing them into using the already existing system.
Maybe. I think it's unrealistic to change everything overnight, but if someone has time and commits to supporting it for the foreseeable, do it, get consensus and we'll migrate. It's the caretaking part that causes problems. It's all well and good saying it's open and anyone could run it, but I'm not going to fight with someone else's tools if I find them awkward, so someone does have to say "yes, I'll take care of this".
<snip> ** end quote [MJ Ray]
As a suggestion for a way forward to those with the time and inclination to do something I'll reference HantsLUG again (if nobody minds!). The Wiki there started as a suggestion being hosted on a members own server (at the end of an ADSL line iirc). It was tried out for a good while and when it had proved itself both useful and used it was migrated across to the main site and became the official site.
So (and ignoring the word Wiki in there because there's nothing to say this can only be done with one) if somebody is so inclined to try something out and post a URL for people to take a look at then there is nothing lost bar their own time. If the LUG likes it and it starts getting populated then it can be linked from the main site as a prototype new look. If it continues to be active then it can be migrated across and become the official site. If at any point it becomes abandoned or little used the the worst that has been lost is the effort of putting a link on the main site and a few volunteers time playing with putting together a website and content (which they probably enjoyed anyway and learnt from). The likelihood is that even if it doesn't prove successful there will still be a few bits of new content for the main site.
Of course if too many people do this then you'll have to choose one as the 'official' experimental site, but what are the odds of that? :)
Quoting MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop:
This thread is being distorted by a few posting a lot. Enumerate participants other than me, Brett and Adam:
- Keith posted a question based on a problem;
- Paul suggested a solution and asked a related question;
- Laurie asked a related question;
- Al offered to work on a solution, partly answering Paul;
- Ben suggested a solution;
- Ten asked related questions;
- Dave tried to move the discussion forwards;
- Wayne Stallwood suggested ideas and mentioned an immediate problem;
- Jonathan McDowell answered a question;
- Darren fixed the immediate problem.
I don't think it's safe to conclude that "many ALUGgers are unhappy" from that. Maybe they are, but it's not clear yet.
How about we decide on a list of issues and then try and see if they can be sorted out, either by assigning them to (willing!) individuals or tackling them in more depth on the list?
Things that might be considered:
i) Whether a new style for the site is needed, and what it might consist of; ii) How updates can be handled in the future; iii) Which pages need updating; iv) Who could/should be responsible for what.
There are, of course, bound to be things I have missed, but I am guessing that i) and ii) are the most pressing going by the coverage in this thread.
I'm of the opinion that if the 4 issues above can be sorted while retaining the current site structure, then that's the best option.
-- Dave Briggs linux@davebriggs.net | http://davebriggs.net | http://palimpsest.org.uk
David Reynolds wrote:
I'm not sure how long the current site has been about, being a *fairly* new Alugger, but as Brett said in a previous email, the design is beginning to look a bit dated. Surely this thread is an ideal time to raise the subject of perhaps redesigning the site and trying to find a new way forward for the future web presence of Alug.
Another thing that should be discussed is who is going to take responsibility for the site. As far as I can tell many people would be interested in having a hand in the website, keeping it up to date, adding content, etc but no one has even been offered the chance. Surely by using some kind of CMS it will allow more people to contribute and keep the site up to date without having to rely on one person to patch the site.
I agree with david that some sort of updated CMS would certainly make it much more attractive for me, personally, to update and provide content for the website, although its likely that this is due to the fact that I am currently putting a zope/plone CMS in at work and have been working quite closely on that for the past 3 months.
I am more than happy to share my experiences and help out if I can with anything like this if its of use.
Jim Rippon
Jim Rippon jim@rippon.org.uk wrote:
David Reynolds wrote:
I'm not sure how long the current site has been about, being a *fairly* new Alugger, but as Brett said in a previous email, the design is beginning to look a bit dated. Surely this thread is an ideal time to raise the subject of perhaps redesigning the site and trying to find a new way forward for the future web presence of Alug.
Another thing that should be discussed is who is going to take responsibility for the site. As far as I can tell many people would be interested in having a hand in the website, keeping it up to date, adding content, etc but no one has even been offered the chance. Surely by using some kind of CMS it will allow more people to contribute and keep the site up to date without having to rely on one person to patch the site.
I agree with david that some sort of updated CMS would certainly make it much more attractive for me, personally, to update and provide content for the website, although its likely that this is due to the fact that I am currently putting a zope/plone CMS in at work and have been working quite closely on that for the past 3 months.
I've played with that combo recently too, it's not bad, bit on the slow side unless fed by a powerful machine. www.stu.uea.ac.uk used to run a Zope instance back when me and MJ Ray where working for them, Zope's come a long way since then, and plone is a nice bolt on the top of it... Not sure that it's going to be a good bolt for the alug site though, might be worth throwing bits of the alug site at it and seeing what happens...
I am more than happy to share my experiences and help out if I can with anything like this if its of use.
It'd be good to hear about your experiences, both good and bad :)
Thanks,
Brett Parker wrote:
Jim Rippon jim@rippon.org.uk wrote:
David Reynolds wrote:
I'm not sure how long the current site has been about, being a *fairly* new Alugger, but as Brett said in a previous email, the design is beginning to look a bit dated. Surely this thread is an ideal time to raise the subject of perhaps redesigning the site and trying to find a new way forward for the future web presence of Alug.
Another thing that should be discussed is who is going to take responsibility for the site. As far as I can tell many people would be interested in having a hand in the website, keeping it up to date, adding content, etc but no one has even been offered the chance. Surely by using some kind of CMS it will allow more people to contribute and keep the site up to date without having to rely on one person to patch the site.
I agree with david that some sort of updated CMS would certainly make it much more attractive for me, personally, to update and provide content for the website, although its likely that this is due to the fact that I am currently putting a zope/plone CMS in at work and have been working quite closely on that for the past 3 months.
I've played with that combo recently too, it's not bad, bit on the slow side unless fed by a powerful machine. www.stu.uea.ac.uk used to run a Zope instance back when me and MJ Ray where working for them, Zope's come a long way since then, and plone is a nice bolt on the top of it... Not sure that it's going to be a good bolt for the alug site though, might be worth throwing bits of the alug site at it and seeing what happens...
I was involved with the current stu.uea.ac.uk website selection as that was part of the death of the TSW. Much embarasment there was there - but the point of zope and plone is that it can be used and indeed administered by a non-techincal leader, in this case the comms officer.
I dont think anyone is suggesting we need to descend to the abyss of completly stupid-user style plone systems, but plone is a very nice multiple user system to run where areas of control can be allocated to prevent website poisonings from occuring. Its less powerful then most wikis, but incredibly easy to use...
But in this group of luggers, you are never going to get everyone satisified at the same time - you would first need to reach an agreement on how to decide to move forwards.
The other thing about this group is that most of them are despotic - it comes from a long history of experience, where being despotic a) usualy gets results and b) means you dont have any problems (for the majority of times) - how many network admins here can claim to be non-despotic about how the run their networks? how many sysadmins are non-despotic? Is this such a bad trait to have?
JT
-
Adam Bower -
Brett Parker -
Dave Briggs -
David Reynolds -
James Taylor -
Jim Rippon -
MJ Ray -
Paul Tansom -
Peter Bassill -
Stuart Bailey