Hello All, Thanks in advance for all the feedback, it's all been very constructive. I am just going to try and address everything up to now in this thread. Sorry if this email gets a bit long. Just some quick back-story. Please see Ralph's original thread "Website Version 2, next steps" [1] He concluded with three main tasks: 1. Go over existing web content (not in wiki or forums) 2. Unified Authentication design, centering around LDAP 3. Feedback or suggestions for the software to power the web site. Since that thread began, an IRC meeting was held [2]. Official notes of that meeting should be put up somewhere, but here's what I can remember (others in attendance, chime in if I miss something): 1. Community members who are actively trying to help with the web site tasks agreed to use the Atrium[3] web site for the project management. 2. The first wireframe[4] was introduced. This was meant as a visual tool to look at the how the existing web pages[5] could be revised or re-ordered. It was also hoped that it would spur some additional designs and layout work. Additional designs have been submitted on the Atrium web site. 3. It was asked if the web site could be directly powered by the wiki software. There were enough issues to recommend not using the existing wiki. We also wanted to keep the scope small, so switching wiki software was not considered either. 4. At the time, only two options for powering the web site were brought up, version controlled html/css and Drupal. There were at least a few who seemed familiar enough with Drupal to suggest giving it a try. No concrete decision has been made about the software. Just some avenues to pursue. And finally, after a couple of us did some additional work on the Atrium website, we wanted to post what was going on to the mailing lists. Here we are. Here's my take home so far: If there are any technical requirements for the web site, the should be defined and documented. I think there are a few I know of, so I will post that as a discussion point on the Atrium website. The software stack is still up in the air. I personally believe there will be more then one viable solution. If that's the case, having a champion or some expertise in the group could end up being the deciding factor. That said, I gave my non-technical view of why it's worth trying out Drupal here[6] There's more then a few people who seem willing to provide some input, opinions, suggestions, less then gentle critiques ;-). And that is all great, and exactly why the Atrium web site and mailing list discussions are so important. The project should be transparent. But we are going to need more. If this is something you are interested in, register on the Atrium account and be ready to contribute. In my mind, this project should be completed to coincide with CentOS 6. Now, keep the CentOS 6 release remarks out of this, and think about how long that should take. If we are going to hit that deadline, we will need all the help we can get. Thanks, Jim [1] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-February/006674.html [2] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-April/007288.html [3] http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/websitever2/ [4] http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/websitever2/node/40 [5] http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/websitever2/node/41 [6] http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/websitever2/node/42