[Imc-alternatives] a note for non-geeks on the current code situation

[lancaster-imc at riseup.net]

Last count, if I add the lpimc two techs (plus one from DC who knows
drupal somewhat) who know drupal and are working in some manner together
on the lpimc site, seems drupally-knowledgeable peeps on the list are in
abundance. I will reach out to the lpimc techs and see where they are on
this. My feeling is that since the imc-alt project has in mind much of
what the lpimc site wants--it would make sense to combine resources and be
in the position to launch at least two new sites--plus I am under the
impression that DC-IMC is eager to upgrade and watching what is happening,
but lacking sufficient tech support to upgrade on its own at this point. I
will get back soon.

Side note: does anybody know how to fix email document text in ubuntu when
ubuntu decides to make it smaller than impossible to read without getting
a headache, besides warm rebooting? Silly bugs.

Michaelv

> Strypey,
>
> Thank you so much for this clarification.  It helps focus so much of
> what we've talked about for the last year, and what has been so
> daunting and confusing.
>
> A few months ago when we decided (more or less) to go with the
> PhillyIMC/Drupal I was excited about that.  Then we started to float
> while the PhillyIMC put together its site.  In the meantime, the
> Indymedia techs offered what seemed to be an amazing scenario -- that
> they would have a unified code decision soon, and that they would
> entertain the idea of working with the alternatives site as one of
> the first interations of that.  Over the last few months that has
> floated too....
>
> So, now I think we're back to vagueness.  We have the Drupal, Plone,
> Indycore, Cake-Php options....but you're right, the talk could go on
> forever if we don't finally make (or remake) a decision.
>
> I really appreciate the offer by Dimitris to co-bottomline a
> Plone/Indycore site with Dave F.  I agree that leaves us vulnerable
> if either one of them gets too busy, but what they're offering is
> something we lack in Drupal -- a couple people willing to put the
> time in to make things tick.
>
> In general I still feel comfortable with the idea of our going with
> Drupal beause of all the things we've discussed before.  Though, even
> though we have PhillyIMC working on their site and sharing energy
> with Alternatives, we haven't found anyone (or a couple anyones) to
> say, "I'm going to bottomline the development of the Drupal version
> of the Alternatives site."  We have a lot of Drupal support staff,
> but we don't have a unifying driving individual or two or three or
> more to make it happen.
>
> Or do we?  Has that changed in these months?  Is there anyone out
> there (or, again, more than one anyone) who would take that plunge
> and say, "I will help make the Drupal version of the Alternatives
> site come together?"  We now have the PhillyIMC site as a jumping-off
> point, which is something we didn't have before, so maybe we're closer.
>
> If we find bottomliners for a Drupal version, can host on axxs and
> are already working with Nick and others to put thought toward design
> and navivigation, we could maybe actually get this thing to happen.
>
> Anyone?
> Jay
>
>
> At 3/9/2008, you wrote:
>>Kia ora koutou
>>
>>To summarize what's been said before about the great cms comparison
>> project
>>that's been running for the last few months...
>>
>>The reason for the great imc-cms discussion is to free our shrinking
>>global pool
>>of Indy geeks from the (now unnecessary) work of maintaining and
>>supporting the
>>second generation Indy-specific cms software (SF Active, Mir etc).
>>By choosing a
>>community-developed project (like Drupal, Plone, or PhpCake) as a
>>platform for a
>>third generation Indy software, Indy geeks only need to maintain code for
>>Indy-specific needs (like the ability to hide articles as well as
>>just deleting
>>them), rather than having to maintain and document an entire cms.
>>Also, they can
>>spend time working on new functions and interface improvements. Because
>> of the
>>wider developer base, additions and improvements are likely to be
>>developed and
>>rolled out more quickly anyway.
>>
>>What non-geeks need to keep in mind about software engineering debates...
>>
>>There will *always* be technical debates among geeks about the best
>> software
>>package, language, operating system etc They need to consider the
>>pros and cons
>>of what is available now. They also need to futureproof, considering how
>>sustainable a given software project is, and whether it will grow
>>and mature as
>>fast as another alternative. The other fact that needs to be
>>emphasized (I think
>>it's so obvious to geeks it's often overlooked) is that people will
>>champion the
>>language or project that they are most skilled in. This makes sense, as
>> they
>>have the expert knowledge to recommend the system they know best.
>>Also, there's
>>no point them singing the praises of a project they have heard great
>> things
>>about, if they have no ability to offer practical support to make it
>> happen.
>>Therefore, the more geeks you add to the debate, the more complex
>>and insoluble
>>the discussion will become.
>>
>>What this means for the imc-alternatives working group...
>>
>>To use a building analogy, we are proposing a bridge. We know which
>>waterway we
>>want to cross, and where we want to get from, and to. So now we have
>> engineers
>>debating over the best place for the bridge, and the best style of bridge
>> to
>>build. These debates could go on forever. Sooner or later we just
>>have to pick a
>>design and hire some builders. Luckily for us, we can always migrate to a
>>different software later on, just as you can initially build a wooden
>> foot
>>bridge, then later replace it with a steel road bridge (or whatever).
>>
>> From what I understand (and I welcome corrections or clarifications
>> here) the
>>benefits of PHPCake lie in its potential to distribute the job of serving
>> the
>>various Indy sites over various servers. This would potentially make the
>> sites
>>more reliable, and make it harder for any given site to be taken down.
>> It's
>>something that's been talked about for a long time, and it's exciting
>> that we
>>might have finally found a way to do it. But getting this software
>> written,
>>tested and working, and rolling it out across all the Indy sites, is a
>> *huge*
>>project. Even if PHPCake emerges as the consensus of the imc-cms process,
>> it
>>could be a few months or a few years before the process of migrating the
>> whole
>>network to the new cms is complete.
>>
>>However, for the imc-alternatives project to get our 1.0 site up, we only
>> need
>>three things:
>>1) a server willing to host it
>>2) a team of geeks willing to agree on one existing software base and
>> build it
>>for us
>>3) designers, editors and journalists to make it look pretty, make
>>it usable and
>>fill it with media for users to use
>>
>>Personally I favour going ahead with Drupal for imc-alt 1.0. The reasons:
>>1) A number of imc sites are already using Drupal, including Philly,
>>whose geeks
>>are willing to actively support this work for us.
>>2) We only have one geek (Dave from Axxs) who could support a Plone site
>>(correct me if I'm wrong) and I dislike having single points of failure,
>> or
>>resting such a responsibility on one person.
>>2) Other options like CakePhP and Ruby on Rails may be options for the
>> future,
>>but they are works in progress, whereas we know Drupal is ready for imc
>> use.
>>
>>So, do we have a server willing to host an iteration of Drupal for us? Do
>> we
>>have a team of geeks willing to put the site together for us? Do we have
>> a
>>designer willing to implement our desired look and feel? Assuming
>>the answer is
>>yes, I say we go for it! I would even suggest setting up an
>>imc-alternatives-tech list where the nuts and bolts of getting this done
>> could
>>be worked out without boggling the minds of the non-techs, with regular
>>report-backs to this list in plain language ;)
>>
>>That leaves the non-geeks on this list with three tasks:
>>1) Sort out how we want the site to look and feel, and how want it to
>> work for
>>us as admins, editors, publishers, and readers (the concept of users
>>stories was
>>useful here).
>>2) Get an alternatives category added to our local IMC and start
>>publishing the
>>stories we would want to see on the 1.0 site once it exists
>>3) Continue to promote the concept of imc-alternatives and encourage
>>more people
>>to get involved
>>
>>I may be disappearing for the rest of March and April, to help crew the
>> NORML
>>CannaBus on it's first national tour promoting drug law reform in
>> Aotearoa. If
>>this happens I will attempt to check my email periodically but won't
>>be able to
>>put much time in for a while. Would be thrilling to see consensus on our
>> name,
>>and software, so these tasks can be delegated and some more forward
>>motion achieved.
>>
>>Kia kaha koutou! (keep up the good work all)
>>Strypes
>>
>>Jay wrote:
>> > Michael and everyone,
>> >
>> > At 2/23/2008, lancaster-imc at riseup.net wrote:
>> >> Hey, I just wanted to let everyone know I updated the wiki for
>> IMC-Alt by
>> >> adding the top horizontal menu to all the pages for easier
>> navigation.
>> >> Also, I  noticed on the tech page (I think) that it talks about
>> Drupal as
>> >> the first install. From what I have gathered things have changed and
>> now
>> >> php cake is the cms language of choice--Someone with the direct line
>> on
>> >> the specific tech plan should probably update that page.
>> >>
>> >> Michael
>> >
>> > It's confusing.  Over the last few months I've been enthusiastic
>> > about our going with whatever backend code the imc-cms group decides
>> > upon.  However, as time goes on with no clear CMS choice, I've become
>> > less enthusiastic.
>> >
>> > I honestly am not sure what I think now.  There is still a lot of
>> > positive drupal energy in this group, but we haven't had anyone step
>> > forward and say "we're going to make this site work in drupal,
>> > darnit, so let's go!"  I like the arguments Ryan has for CakePHP, and
>> > am intrigued by the possible choice to go that direction.
>> >
>> > I really don't want our project to wait indefinitely to get ourselves
>> > going just so we can line up with the general indy code.  However,
>> > the benefits of being part of the overall network push toward a
>> > unified code are really appealing.
>> >
>> > What do other people think about this?  Should we continue to
>> > wait?  Or should we redouble our efforts to build something based on
>> > the PhillyIMC drupal code, as we agreed upon a long while ago?
>> >
>> > Jay
>>_______________________________________________
>>Imc-alternatives mailing list
>>Imc-alternatives at lists.indymedia.org
>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-alternatives
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-alternatives mailing list
> Imc-alternatives at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-alternatives
>