jshirley at gmail
Jan 22, 2008, 7:27 AM
Post #14 of 15
(3410 views)
Permalink
|
On Jan 22, 2008 1:27 AM, Matt S Trout <dbix-class [at] trout> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 08:34:29AM -0800, J. Shirley wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2008 2:29 AM, Matt S Trout <dbix-class [at] trout> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:20:54PM -0700, Jay K wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > Following up on the discussion on #catalyst-dev. I spoke with a
> > > > designer friend of mine and we're going to get together tomorrow
> night
> > > > and discuss over a few beers.
> > >
> > > There were already a number of proposed designs last time we went over
> > > this.
> > >
> >
> > Each with their own problems, making them difficult to properly use.
> >
> > >
> > > The problem isn't that we don't have a design.
> > >
> >
> > The problem is that we don't have a design to put content, and it gets
> > tiring to try to write content in a way that isn't displayed right
> because
> > if you want to change the display... well, whoops, you're designing
> again.
>
> I'd just write some content and then we can edit it down to fit into the
> design later. Any fluid CSS design usually lets you have longer content
> anyway. I thought that was rather the point.
>
That's what we're doing, but some folks have opinions against fluid designs,
blah blah blah blah blah.
>
> > >
> > > The problem is we don't have a working mojomojo for the dev site and
> we
> > > don't
> > > have copy written for a new main site.
> > >
> >
> > No, I have that setup and people are working on content.
>
> So do an 'import' that just links any existing page to a /oldwiki URL we
> can set up with an export of the trac HTML and lets roll it over. Then
> everybody can play at porting trac pages easily.
>
This was also discussed at length some time ago, and between jwang and
myself going through the content it really just needs to be revamped.
People can import from Trac, but it needs manual editing and
categorization. The big strength of MojoMojo is that it has a tree
hierarchy and we should be using that to its fullest advantage.
The idea of importing the Trac nodes was shelved, as it just seemed like it
was going to cause more work down the road than it would be to just manually
import by hand. We can open this discussion up again, but I am pretty sure
that the same conclusions will be made.
Also, specifically for Matt, regarding removing all ops and setting
#catalyst-site (which I created to JFDI) to +m I have some things I'd like
to say about that. I believe #catalyst-dev is for the development of
Catalyst. I don't want to have to deal with filtering other discussions
when talking about site content and marketing matters. What you did with
#catalyst-site is total bullshit, and really a huge asshole of a move.
We're happily getting stuff done, and making great progress. If that
bothers you, we can all go back to sitting around not doing anything. In
the mean time, please don't mess with channels I create that are serving a
purpose. Just because you may not see the value in it doesn't make it your
decision to remove all ops, and set +m. You could have been mature,
reasonable and asked us to bring it in and I could have discussed why I feel
it is necessary. Instead, you took it upon yourself to make executive
decisions on a community project, with rabid foaming at the mouth logic.
I'm used to you doing things along these lines so I'm not mad, just
disappointed. Your way isn't the only way, and your mentality here is only
going to damage motivation to get stuff done. Who knows, maybe you got
3-core member approval for this change and I just missed it.
-J
|
