[Seattle-editorial] Proposal, Launch New Site without converting old site until later

[typist at speakeasy.net]

I think that may well work best -- launch new site with link to old.  But even a new site seems like huge amount of work and needs to be assessable to all computers--we can't risk having a site that some browsers don't show.  The site is our face to the community and too important to be haphazard. Can volunteers really manage such a major undertaking?  Or do we need to hire someone or someones.  I don't know enough about this. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gentry Lange [mailto:g at art13.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:36 PM
> To: 'Jason Reep', seattle-editorial at indymedia.org
> Subject: [Seattle-editorial] 	Proposal, Launch New Site without converting old site until later
> 
> We've talked about this at the past few meetings.
> 
> Does anyone have objections to starting a new site, and simply linking to
> the old site? Then converting the old site as we move forward and have more
> volunteers/time?
> 
> Gentry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
> [mailto:seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org]On Behalf Of Jason
> Reep
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 4:20 PM
> To: seattle-editorial at indymedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Seattle-editorial] Article: An Aisle Seat - Same
> SexPartnerships and America
> 
> 
> 
> >One note I went to a friends and we looked at the Seattle site and it
> looked awful -- none of the graphics came up!  I was showing him how to post
> to the newswire and the link for publishing didn't show up!  I just had to
> point "well it should be there."  It did link to the publishing site.  So we
> badly need to update the site and ensure that it's not too high end but
> assessible to all computers.
> >
> this and the talk about editorial accountability via the website
> editorial interface (ie: logging) are yet more motivation for a code
> change.  Please see this message I sent a couple weeks ago with info
> about the available codes:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/seattle-editorial/2003-September/003558
> .html
> 
> with some followup here:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/seattle-editorial/2003-September/003559
> .html
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/seattle-editorial/2003-September/003564
> .html
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/seattle-editorial/2003-September/003562
> .html
> 
> >Bascally we have just reaffirmed a policy and practice that hasn't worked
> in the past and that will likely continue to break down and not work in the
> future.
> >
> >Judy
> >
> >
> I have to disagree that the editorial policy has not been working.  It's
> been very effective for nearly three years now.  In fact it may have
> been the most functional aspect of any IMC working group since the WTO.
> The policy isn't the problem in this case, though I would not stand in
> the way of policy changes if they are deemed necessary.  If newswire
> articles that need hiding haven't been being hidden then that is the
> fault of the editors.  I think that the discussion over the last two
> days has affirmed that accountability is vital and that the email list
> is at this time the best way to maintain it.
> 
> solidarity,
> Jason
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>