At 4:17 PM -0500 12/17/01, David Harris wrote: >The purpose of this e-mail is as follows: > >(a) See if others also think that the three alternatives for a mod_perl site >are not very desirable. If you agree, please speak up and say that you >agree.
I agree. > >(b) See if others also think that using the ASF generic site design (even >though it's not "cool and distinctive") would be a good idea. If you agree, >please speak up and say that you agree. I agree. > >(c) Perhaps elicit a volunteer to design an example site that includes Stas' >content and the ASF generic design. If enough people agree with the first >two points, someone may be willing to volunteer to do this.. perhaps even >one of the existing contributors who have already figured out DocSet. >Perhaps even Stas! Not me, sorry. A little too busy right now. >Lets try to keep this constructive, focused, and concrete. :-) Concrete isn't used when building websites. >Also, lets keep in mind something that Stas pointed out to me: most anything >is a step up from our existing site design. So, if we go with one of the >three existing options it's still a step up. So long as "most anything" doesn't include designs that are broken. Rob -- When I used a Mac, they laughed because I had no command prompt. When I used Linux, they laughed because I had no GUI.
