[CentOS-docs] CentOS wiki/web changes

Wed Sep 17 17:28:50 UTC 2008
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org>

Marcus Moeller wrote:
> Good Evening

it was till about 5 min back :D

> I fully agree. In my the old-style website is obsolete and needs to be
> re-worked. Either in wiki style (which I would prefer) or in
> Puntal/XOOP or whatever. For me it's really unclear who (but Karanbir)
> is responsible for the decision which core should be used. I feel that
> this is something that has to be discussed.

Absolutely, I am sure lots of people would like to visit the situation 
again. However when this was discussed last it was decided that a 
framework website that is able to handle the core functions would still 
exist at www.centos.org - with a large bulk of user end and community 
generated content would move into sub.sites. eg. wiki.centos.org ( which 
I started after that meeting ), a forums.centos.org ( which is in the 
process of startup, I am aware of the fact that we commited to kicking 
that off this month ), the lang.centos.org sites

w.r.t core services, that would include the news section, info on the 
centos distro, the mirror network, all centos-admin related stuff and 
official docs ( eg. www.centos.org/docs/ ). The site would also manage 
and provide info on the packages setup, the mirror network and allow for 
any upstream project level contribution[1] into the distro and 
mirror.c.o. Also web based apps would live under the website [2].

To be completely honest, I've really not seen anything said so far that 
would indicate that the plan is a bad one. The one thing that keeps 
coming up is that plenty of people will rant on about the website and 
the state its in, but few will actually offer to do anything about it. 
Dag even goes to the extent of taking a dig at me for saying that if 
noone else is interested then I will try as soon as I am able to!! Not 
sure what thats about, I've known him for a while and he's never come 
across as such an idiot before.

> There are a lot of community contributors and members that would like
> to see a wiki based solution (with edit groups for non-public
> sections, I would admit), so I wonder what's wrong with it?

Nothing. No one is saying that the wiki must go away, its one of the 
things that is actively promoted. You guys need to step back a bit and 
think outside the box. Just fixing immediate issues is the reason why we 
are where we are at the moment.

- KB

[1]: I will have more news about this tomorrow.
[2]: As an example: There was talk of a CentOS Network - running a 
server end provider for up2date that allowed some management. If you 
look, the C4 distro even contains references to that. However, everyone 
moving to yum and lack of resources at the time meant that it never got 
done. Which is fine.