In re plone vs this-that-the-other, Xwiki vs. Ywiki, etc - I am a strong proponent of the volunteers having final say on the toolset. Others can and should express their opinions, but after a reasonable period of time (days or weeks, not months) the volunteers should get final decision unless the Elders stand up and override.
That said, my opinions -- I have no qualifications to even have an opinion on plone vs any other content management system. The proposed site, even at first construction, looks more attractive than the current site. Big strong opinion: Git. I like git. If content can be managed/controlled easily with git, it's a win. Not quite as strong an opinion: Gerrit. I like gerrit. If the site maintainer likes it well enough to manage submissions thru it, fine. If not, that's fine too. Conversely, I think neither git nor gerrit should be required of folks submitting things to the site. IMHO the site manager should be willing to accept patches, files, etc, IF the submission is useful enough to be worth the effort. The site manager should have the near-final decision on this, subject only to the elders. An aside re git/gerrit and large site contributions: if we did go with git and maybe gerrit, the Elders ought to suggest firmly that contributors learn to use the tools. The source code writeup for this in the afs wiki is pretty good; only minor mods would be needed to do the same for the web site. Moderate opinion: I found the sample newsletter posted on the site to be difficult. A table of contents is preferable to a long string of links that you have to follow to. Lacking same, one can only wonder if there's an entry on one's own personal interest in there somewhere. Performance: do we ever get a lot of traffic? Performance looks perfectly fine to me. Steve _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
