[imc-cms] Comments on process and the 3 short listed CMS'

[Txopi]

boud-(e)k idatzi zuen:
> hi max,
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Max wrote:
>
>> Boud,
>>
>>>> Similarly...  I have been following this process since being at the
>>>> techmeet in Sao Paolo and really hope people are allowed to move
>>>> forward with this now without lots of blocks being put in their way.
>>>
>>> Is trying to be accurate and self-consistent in describing our
>>> processes "blocking"?
>>
>> You consider it trying to be accurate and self-consistent, others
>> consider it differently. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learnt here.
>
> Others felt that my tone was offensive and clearly there have been
> some misunderstandings. i am aware of that.
>
> Using wiki techniques on wiki pages gave the result that the
> scientific journal Nature judged science pages of the english language
> wikipedia to be at about the same level of accuracy and
> self-consistency with scientific knowledge as those of the
> Encyclopedia Britannica. These techniques include: editing the pages
> is *not* restricted to just the best experts in the topic; "good
> faith" is assumed when people make edits; the NPOV principle.

I agree with ryan that this paragraph uses terms that not everybody here
will understand but anyway I am going to try to answer:

(Note: NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a Wikipedia projects concept
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV )

We haven't tolk about that but I also think that it would be good to try
that the general contents of our wiki (excluding logs, the interviews,
etc.) show a neutral point of view. But i am sure that everybody here
thinks the same so, despite boud's unclear sentence, he doesn't say
nothing that we were already didn't presume. If someone is not agree with
this, please answer this e-mail.

I feel that I already answered this but I am going to make another
attempt. In short: We use the wiki as documentation. We agree that the
documentation should tend to show a neutral point of view. As the wiki is
an alive tool, temporaly, it can contain non neutral point of views. The
other users try to reach that concensus (in wikipedia the "significant
views") using discussion areas, making non controversial improvements
directly, proposing polls for the controversial ones, etc. In our case, we
also can use this mailing list to propose the controversial changes and
reach the consensus.

So, step by step, the content of the wiki grows and improves.

But in this case, one guy has replaced another guy's content that has been
already accepted by others. So this change makes the content worse (or at
least as good/bad as before), so it is logical to revert the change as it
goes against the general working principle I described above.

bod, now, I think you should try with a non-controversial change and if it
is not possible, discuss you proposal here until we reach consensus. Can
you please make another proposal so we can improve the text?

Until now, I just have read you talking about wikipedia and i think it is
clear that in this project it is not suited to use discussion areas and
polls because we have this mailing list.

So, my opinion, if you want that text to be changed, you should share with
us a proposal that trys to improve it (not replace it). Then, i am sure
that many people here will try to reach a consensus and advance in the
work.

>
> Lessons can be learnt from this too.
>
>
>>>> From what I can tell no one seems to be
>>>> looking to create THE indy cms but spurn a variety (but not too many)
>>>
>>> i don't know if it's anyone's *intention* to create "THE indy cms",
>>> and it's true that it has been said several times in irc and/or this
>>> mailing list that the favoured CMS won't be forced onto any existing
>>> IMCs.  However, these statements were made and recorded e.g. in irc
>>> logs or long mailing list threads.
>>
>>>> why don't we look for an existing open source CMS
>>>
>>> "an" = just one
>>>
>>>> We will need to look for a suitable CMS
>>>
>>> "a" = just one
>>>
>>>> Once the CMS has been chosen
>>>
>>> "the CMS"  = definitely just one
>>>
>>>> so that all indymedia sites can conveniently switch to the new CMS.
>>>
>>> "all indymedia sites"
>>>
>>> "the new CMS" = definitely just one
>>
>> Since this was my text, perhaps I should be the one interpreting it.
>
> For someone from e.g. a new imc collective looking for key information,
> neither my interpretation nor your interpretation is highly relevant,
> since a person reading the page is unlikely to try to contact either one
> of us to ask how s/he should interpret the page.
>
> The topic is not your intentions in writing the text; the topic is
> whether or not we give the general impression that we are choosing
> "THE indy cms" - that was and's expression. He said "spurn a variety",
> which means more than one.
>
>> Let's start from the observation that forcing anything on all IMCs is
>> a ludicrous concept: every IMC is autonomous. The average IMCista I
>> know doesn't respond well to being forced to do anything.
>
> We agree on that. That's not in dispute. Rather, the question here is
> whether we give the impression that we want to put most of our energy
> into a single CMS or rather a small number, and if it's a single CMS,
> to what extent it will dominate our network.
>
>> Let's go on and add context on the situation: it was 2006, sf-active,
>> mir and dada covered the CMSes used by at least 90% of all IMCs. The
>> sole dada developer had practically quit support and sf-active and mir
>> developers, conscious of the dire state of the respective development
>> teams were present at the meeting. Ergo, I was trying to propose
>> finding a solution for all IMCs that were in need of one. I'm sorry you
>> thought that I wanted to force them or the other 10% to use any one CMS.
>> But I'm quite sure few people were under that impression.
>
> i certainly don't think that you were trying to force a single CMS on
> other imcs. My apologies if you thought that.

Well, I also thought you were saying that. In you previous message you wrote:

boud> i don't know if it's anyone's *intention* to create "THE indy cms",

Now, I see a change in your argumentation and you say that it is just a
little problem about clearlyness of the presentation text. What a mess!
boud, I don't know if you have problems getting through to us, if we speak
another language or if you have changed your point of view and you don't
want to admit it, but right now I don't care.

If you think it is just a matter of clearness of that text, please make a
suggestion to improve it: "Hey guys, I propose to change the 2nd and 6th
sentence like this. Do you agree?" "I want to propose you this clearer
presentation I have writen. What do you think?"

I think that being resolutive and assertive is quite more efficient than
sending so many objections and bad points.

>
>> Naturally, I hope a lot of us can join forces to support the same CMS:
>> That will enable us to accomplish more in less time. A logical
>> consequence of that would be that a lot of IMCs would then use that
>> CMS. It does however to mean that _every_ IMC should use it, nor does
>> it involve force.
>
> i'm certainly not suggesting that coercion was intended. We do have some
> misunderstandings and possibly some real points in conflict, but nothing
> that serious. :)
>
> However, using your estimate of 90%, let's consider what will
> realistically happen if all the IMCs presently on sf-active/mir/dada
> will switch to the new single CMS.
>
> Without any coercion being used, IMHO it's clear that if 90% of IMCs
> will use the same CMS, then it will be generally considered as "THE
> indy cms", in the sense that it will very largely dominate and, for
> example, new imcs will accept to use it unless they are very sure of
> themselves technically. When something dominates at a level of 90%,
> it doesn't need to use force to remain dominant.

I don't undertstand the matter here. You are afraid of what will happen if
we do our work "too well"? Right now we have problems mantaining the most
used codebases. That is serious. We want to join forces to make our lives
a bit easier. I don't think that Apache hackers were worryed about what
will happen if most web servers in the world were going to choose their
solution. That can't be an argument to stop or to put obstacles to a
project that just has began.

If a lot of IMCs will use this code in the future, they will do it because
it is a good solution. Because it has useful features. Because it has good
technical suport. Because it is worth to use it. If we don't achieve a
good CMS, be sure almost nobody will migrate to this software.

boud, I think you should relax a bit and try to contribute to this
project. If we waste too many time, dozens of IMCs runing dada can fall
down because a security flaw we can't resolve. Many IMCs can fell (more)
leaved because Zapata has decided to take vacances. We have a lot to win
with this project  (of couse we also can hack new wonderful features) so I
think it is worth to seriously make an effort to contribute in it.

Well, I'm sorry if I'm so awkward, but I just want to ensure that all of
us are guided to sincerely resolve the problems we find and make a good
enought work (because all us know that perfection doesn't exist).

Txopi.