CLUG Website

[Simon Andrews]

[Sending again from the account which is actually subscribed to the  
list]

On 24 Sep 2009, at 11:49, Mark Wyatt wrote:

>> Well, while it is true that getting access to the server is how the  
>> problem
> presents itself, I am not convinced that this is the main problem or  
> the
> root cause.
>
> Remember that usually when we have tried to do this in the past,  
> while there
> has been general agreement that what we have now is not what we  
> want, there
> has not been agreement on what we want instead.

I'm sure this is an ongoing debate which can be had.  My main reason  
for bringing this up again was the fact that what we actually have up  
now is out of date and flat out wrong.  Whatever people's thoughts on  
the matter then at least putting up a simple (but accurate) holding  
page which points people to the mailing list would have to be an  
improvement.


> There has usually been someone in 'lone wolf' mode who has something  
> (or is
> allegedly about to have something) that they think we ought to want,  
> but there
> has been no widespread agreement that it is in detail what we  
> actually want.
>
> In that circumstance, it is clear that the suggestion will have  
> little positive
> support and may well have a strong element of passive resistance.

Well, the general axiom in these situations is that code speaks louder  
than words.  If the CLUG wants a more elaborate website then someone  
needs to step up and create it and be prepared to stand behind it and  
keep it maintained.

If a few people have different ideas about what should happen then,  
since reaching a consensus about these things is almost impossible so  
have everyone put up a mockup of their site and we can take a poll  
among interested parties.  If people aren't bothered enough about a  
proposal to do something themselves then that should influence the  
weight given to their opinions.

In fact, this is in the finest tradition of open source.  I may have  
strong opinions about how OpenOffice should work, but unless I'm  
providing patches or maintaining my own fork then who the hell is  
going to listen to me?


> Whether that is a factor, or not, but with that as a background, it  
> is unclear
> how Thomas should arbitrate between competing interests who each  
> have a version
> that should be instantiated in place of what is there now (he  
> probably shouldn't
> be in that position, but we have no other gatekeeper). I am hoping  
> that isn't a
> factor today, but it would be wise to clear that issue up for the  
> future.

At the moment I don't see much to arbitrate about.  Noone has spoken  
up in favour of keeping the existing site.  I've seen two options for  
a holding page, either of which I'd be happy to go with but heck we  
can hold a poll if we want to decide between them.  Other than that  
noone has got stuck in and made anything.  I'd love to see a richer  
web site but I'm not volunteering to do that.  I'd happily support  
anyone else who did want to do so.

Simon.