[Seattle-editorial] Re: changing our codebase
Micah Anderson
micah at indymedia.org
Sun Aug 10 11:46:10 PDT 2003
Slow down there tigers! We haven't actually sent this *draft* message
out to any IMCs yet, I sent it to imc-tech for comments, suggestions.
There is still some prep work and organizing that we ave to do before
we can solicit IMCs to do this . We were planning on sending it out to
5 stallman hosted IMCs at a time so that we can manage it with the
people resources we have, but we haven't sent it out yet :). It is
great that seattle people are reading the imc-tech list, but just be
aware that we aren't ready for this yet.
Seeing as how stefani has already put a lot of work into putting up
example sites for seattle and there has been some suggestion of moving
the seattle site off stallman altogether (I am not sure where this
went, or if I am just making that up), and you guys are very eager, I
would be more than interested in making Seattle one of the first five
that we send this to... but again, please realize that imc-tech is not
ready to transition you yet (that is why this letter was a draft, sent
to imc-tech, and was not sent to seattle yet).
Just so you know, you aren't holding up the process at all, in fact
you are maybe going a little quickly, but I am not going to stop you
from doing that. Please continue to have this discussion (although I'd
prefer not to be a part of it, I get too much email as it is) and once
we've gotten enough comments in imc-tech on the letter and decide to
go forward with it (we need to make sure we have enough available
resources to manage any switch), then we will be sure to send the
letter to you guys, and perhaps by then you will have the choice made
and be ready to go right away. :)
micah
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, jonathan lawson wrote:
> This is great news. (thanks Micah!)
>
> As some remember, the editorial collective long ago approved a whole series
> of modifications to the code and later, once several new codebases were
> available, decided that the best idea would be to simply change over. At
> the time (spring 2002) there was an editorial consensus around SF-Active,
> and several global tech folk had expressed interest in helping us makde the
> switch, though nothing came of that at the time.
>
> Now there are several choices which we had a chance to review a few months
> ago--I think Stephanie and Brandon F. set up several dud front pages in
> SF-Active, Mir, DadaImc etc.
>
> I think that SF-Active is best suited for us. It has a broad install base,
> is graphically similar to Active, and other sites (including our closest
> neighbor Vancouver) have successfully made the conversion already. The
> search and upload functions are far superior, and it offers neat additional
> features such as topical feature pages... there are more reasons I think
> SF-Active is a better choice than Dada (the second best choice, I think),
> which we could discuss at a meeting convened for the purpose.
>
> The main problem for conversion I think will be the story archive--there is
> no easy way to track down all the internal cross-links and
> images/soundfiles whose address has changed over the years--our archives
> are pretty important and need to remain accessible.
>
> Re. new design schemes: I think we should definitely move to a
> white-background model; SF-Active is based on style sheets and allows users
> to choose alternate color schemes. There are probably by now several sets
> of meeting notes containing good thoughts about changes to the site design.
> We should make some effort to compile those before moving forward anew.
>
> BTW, Here are rough drafts for a proposed new banner style based on
> Hiroshige watercolors:
> http://deepmedia.org/imc/imc-new-sidebar.gif
> http://www.deepmedia.org/imc/newseattlebanner-rough1.gif
>
> Jonathan
>
> At 07:13 PM 8/9/2003 -0700, anarch3m wrote:
> >This means us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!We should vote what code to
> >adopt. We should do so pronto, before we hold the process up.
> >
> >Media people, look at various sites and send some input about features
> >that we as media makers want.
> >
> >We can take up the graphics redesign which stalled 18 months ago.
> >
> >walt
> >***************************************************
> >Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:01:28 -0400
> >From: Micah Anderson <micah at indymedia.org> [add to address book]
> >[protect or block sender]
> >Subject: [IMC-Tech] draft letter to active sites on stallman
> >To: imc-tech at lists.indymedia.org
> >
> >
> >We've been mulling this over informally in person at times, and at the
> >most recent meeting we decided to write a letter to all the IMCs on
> >stallman that are running active, urging them to switch to a different
> >code base, and offering them help to do so. We only want to contact
> >about 5 sites at a time, so that we don't get swamped and so that we
> >can do things in a managed way, streamlining processes as we go along.
> >Anyways, here is a draft letter, any changes?
> >
> >Dear $IMC contact,
> >
> >IMC-tech is contacting you because you have a site on the shared
> >server called stallman that is running very old IMC code, called
> >"Active". We are writing to you because we would like you to consider
> >switching to a more modern codebase.
> >
> >The reasons why we would like you to switch are the following:
> >
> > . we cannot support Active code, nobody knows how to, and nobody
> > wants to
> >
> > . the active code is not supported or being developed any more
> >
> > . we consider active to be a waste of resources (human, database,
> > disk)
> >
> > . the currently hosted sites on stallman all are various different
> > revisions of the Active code, unknown versions, half upgraded,
> > etc.
> > which makes dealing with these sites a major pain
> >
> > . most people think the other more modern code options are more
> > visually appealing from the outset
> >
> > . the more modern code options make administrative and technical
> >tasks
> > far more easier and obvious: customizing the look and feel,
> > dealing
> > with newswire spam, etc.
> >
> > . the newer code has many more delightful features, such as
> >categories,
> > templating, multilingual support, calendaring, searching,
> > syndication, most importat, they are being currently worked on
> > and supported!
> >
> >There are many other options to consider as alternatives to active,
> >please have a look at the following page to see the various options
> >
> >available: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Devel/WebHome, also you can
> >see people's opinions and experiences with the different code bases
> >
> >here: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Devel/OpinonsExperiences.
> >
> >Your site is hosted on stallman, and if you choose to remain there,
> >the code bases that you should consider are Mir, SF-active, or Dada,
> >these are the only ones that we have talked about supporting. We will
> >work with you to transfer your existing content to the new code, and
> >help you get everything up to how it was before without causing you
> >any significant down-time in the process. If you are interested in
> >moving off of stallman, there are some other options available that
> >can host sf-active, mir or dada.
> >
> >Please consider the options, discuss it with your local tech people
> >and your IMC and get back to us as soon as possible. Rest assured, we
> >*will* move all IMCs hosted on stallman off of old Active, so if
> >nobody from your IMC ever responds, at some point we will make a
> >choice for you. We cannot continue to have active sites on this
> >machine and continue to provide a service to people.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >IMC-tech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
> >http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005
> >_______________________________________________
> >Seattle-editorial mailing list
> >Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> >http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>
More information about the Seattle-editorial
mailing list