[Seattle-editorial] RE: [Seattletech] New website codebase

Tue Sep 9 18:53:25 PDT 2003

As Brandon aptly points out, coding skill will certainly be necessary 
and needs to be a consideration in choosing our new code.  It does seem 
from some of the other IMC folks experiences that migration has varying 
degrees of ease and difficulty.  So ease of migration and subsequent 
management and development are important.  Hopefully there will be 
support in the effort from the tech collective, the actual code 
delvelopers and other folks who've gone through the process at least for 
the migration.  I have gotten the impression that support from the code 
developers has been very good for certain code bases.  praise be upon them.

Hopefully, after migration, maintainence will consist of editorial 
action much more than geek maintainence.  Please correct me if I'm off 
base on this but most of the maintainence of our website up to now has 
had to do with server issues not directly related to or the result of 
the web site code that the server is running(intertwined as the code and 
the server may be)?  At least several SeaIMC folks have accounts on 
stallman and have performed some code maintainence but my impression is 
that that has been pretty in infrequent and minor.  So one question in 
my mind is what expectations, if any, would the tech collective have 
regarding Seattle maintaining it's own server if our website moves from 
Stallman (either because stallman goes away or won't support FOO-BAR 
codebase).  I guess I would be hopeful that there wouldn't be a great 
deal of coding maintainence necessary on a regular basis after the 
initial big push and month or two of clean up.  If I am just spouting 
wishful thinking then I await thorough correction.

-jason

brandon wrote:
> I've omitted imc-tech and imc-seattle media from this mail.
> 
> Summarizing our decisions and research as we go seems critical. the issues
> are complex so I suggest discussing them on the seattle-editorial list, but
> updating summaries on this wiki page:
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/SeaTechCodebaseEvaluation 
> ALSO, updates should be sent to the seattletech list.
> 
> The april 2001 decisions were wiki-fied:
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/SeaTechWebsiteApril2001Decisions
> 
> I created the following page for a log of website changes, and a place to
> suggest NON-CODEBASE specific website changes:
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/SeaTechWebsiteChanges
> For example, a white background can be done with any codebase. As with all
> wiki pages... If you don't like it, please improve it. :)
> 
> And, three thoughts:
> 
> 1) no seattle web server 
> Contrary to the impression I got from micah's comment
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/seattle-editorial/2003-August/003380.h
> tml), I thought we had consensed that we lack the local geeks to create a
> seattle web server. Does anyone disagree? (i.e. how many people can
> personally commit to managing a seattle based web server?)
> 
> 2) limit our codebase options
> If seattle is to be a test case for the global tech collective (which I
> think is a great idea), then perhaps they should tell us which codebases
> stallman can support. If we pick A, and stallman will only support B, C or
> D, then we have wasted some effort. 
> 
> Also, even if we all agree that the FOO-BAR codebase has great features, but
> there's only one developer working on it, nobody in seattle knows the
> language it's written in, and it's known to have a steep learning curve,
> then perhaps we should eliminate it as an option up front. 
> 
> 3) who will do the work?
> Perhaps we need a better idea of who is willing to work on the CODE of this
> project (both the data conversion and the design customization). 
> 
> As well, it __might__ be smart to listen more closely to seattle people who
> are ready and able to actually work on this project.
> 
> peace,
> brandon
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: seattletech-bounces at lists.indymedia.org 
>>[mailto:seattletech-bounces at lists.indymedia.org] On Behalf Of 
>>Jason Reep
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1:05 PM
>>To: seattle-editorial at indymedia.org
>>Cc: seattletech at indymedia.org; imc-tech at indymedia.org; 
>>imc-seattle-media at indymedia.org
>>Subject: [Seattletech] New website codebase
>>
>>
>>Ok,
>>
>>so as far as I can tell, there is a consensus that we need to adopt a
>>new code base for the Seattle IMC web page. There has been a welcome
>>increase in editorial participation in recent weeks which 
>>could make NOW
>>a good time to initiate the process of switching to a newer better
>>codebase.  There are many good reasons to switch, including, to name a
>>few in no particular order: categorization, ratings, more 
>>readable/appealing color schemes, better organization of comments, 
>>editorial flexability, etc..  Also, I am beginning to hear murmurings 
>>that the status of Stallman (IMC web server that hosts ours and many 
>>other IMC websites) may be in question.
>>
>>Basically, I'd like to poll for consensus on one of the options.  The
>>global IMC tech team has offered (or is preparing to/considering 
>>offering?) assistance in migrating IMC websites, including 
>>archives, to 
>>certain among several options for new a codebase. While this will 
>>undoubtedly create some technical problems that will require 
>>theirs and 
>>our attention, I think that we need to jump on the offer 
>>before it goes 
>>away.  Let's encourage them in their work by volunteering to 
>>be a test case.
>>
>>Please take a look at the wiki that lists the current codebases being
>>used by IMC's and have a look at some of the sites that are using the
>>different ones and make your opinions known.  The tech 
>>collective is not
>>interested in helping support all of the different 
>>code-bases.  The top
>>options seem to be Dada, Mir and SF Active, though spip (Perl based?)
>>has had some mention too.
>>
>>I'm not sure where the appropriate place to continue this 
>>discussions. 
>>There is a Seattle Code base wiki page already built but so 
>>far wiki use 
>>doesn't seem to have taken off for Seattle collective members and I 
>>wouldn't want the question to wallow there for lack of eyeballs. 
>>Personally, I think that the editorial list is an reasonable place to 
>>discuss it.
>>
>>If not now, when?
>>
>>code base list:
>>http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Devel/WebHome
>>
>>other IMC's opinions and experiences with code migration:
>>http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Devel/OpinonsExperiences
>>
>>Seattle Code base evaluation wiki page:
>>http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/SeaTechCodebaseEvaluation
>>
>>What sites are running what code:
>>http://www.bandwidthcoop.org/imc/tech/WhatSitesAreRunningWhat
>>
>>jonathan's redesign sandbox
>>http://www.deepmedia.org/imc/
>>
>>some recent discussion (read the threads):
>>
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/seattle-editorial/2003-August/003380.ht
> ml
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/seattle-editorial/2003-April/003228.htm
> l
> there was a lot of discussion about features and design back in the 
> spring of 2001 as well, but I'm not going to spend the time right now to 
> find the archived emails.  Anyone have that info handy?
> 
> draft offer of tech collective assistance (unsure of it's official-ness):
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-tech/2003-August/011658.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattletech mailing list
> Seattletech at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattletech
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial