Following on from the comments: "All in all, I think the best route would be to leave the choice of future platform to someone with an unbiased point of view." "I'll be perfectly happy to accept the decision of the community, if I feel that it has been made through an open, transparent process."
I'll make some effort to start that off: To make an unbiased and transparent decision we need to set down the criteria for the decision and then evaluate the alternatives against those criteria. I suggest the following criteria (and feel free to add to this list): i) New host must support TiddlyWiki formatting and macros (which one of the main reasons to move away from MediaWiki) ii) New host must be multi-user (which is why we cannot just use a TiddlyWiki) iii) New host must be based on an established and supported platform (long-time users of TiddlyWiki may remember that the documentation, prior to mediawiki, was on ZiddlyWiki, a Zope-based server side TiddlyWiki. We moved away from this because the Zope server we used shut down and ZiddlyWiki stopped being supported by its author). iv) New host must be reasonably fast and responsive. Martin On Jan 29, 12:07 pm, Poul <poul.stauga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 Jan., 01:36, Poul <poul.stauga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All in all, I think the best route would be to leave the choice of > > future platform to someone with an unbiased point of view. > > Let me qualify that last remark, at the risk of offending someone by > unintentional (really) implication: > I'll be perfectly happy to accept the decision of the community, if I > feel that it has been made through an open, transparent process. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
