<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-08-14 21:27, Martin Michlmayr
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160815012736.GA19011@jirafa.cyrius.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* Jonathan McDowell <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:noodles@earth.li"><noodles@earth.li></a> [2016-08-14 21:25]:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Contributions to the SPI website went up significantly by moving from
Plone to ikiwiki, and the website became much more current. Empirical
evidence thus suggests we're much better off where we currently are.
Based on experience managing a number of wikis I think the workload
involved in helping people who want to contribute at present but can't
deal with ikiwiki is significantly lower than dealing with an open (or
even approval based) wiki or CMS.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Agreed.
We're definitely open to contributors but we don't use a CMS and
despite using ikiwiki the web site is also not a wiki. SPI's web site
is a static web site generated with ikiwiki from Markdown.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thank you Martin.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160815012736.GA19011@jirafa.cyrius.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> You also
cannot edit debian.org directly, for example, but contributions are
welcome. Same with SPI.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Debian's situation is far from perfect despite important advances,
but it is better than SPI's in a number of important ways.
Specifically about the possibility to edit directly, while you are
right if focusing on <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.debian.org">www.debian.org</a>, that is not the case with
wiki.debian.org, which would be approximately as important as
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.debian.org">www.debian.org</a>, despite being quite newer.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160815012736.GA19011@jirafa.cyrius.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> The git repository is available (there's a
link from the front page) and you're welcome to send patches or pull
requests. The webmaster email is also displayed for those wanting to
provide feedback.
If someone makes sustained contributions, I'm sure we'd be happy to
give direct access to the git repo.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
While having to learn a new syntax is already quite a disadvantage,
at least for me, having to send patches to an opaque system whose
performance I cannot evaluate multiplies my hesitation. Knowing that
a direct access would come would help, but only those who will make
sustained contributions and who already know they will. If you meant
to encourage contribution, I am not the person to address.
Experience has taught me not to contribute in such conditions.
Putting such a statement on the website *might* help.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="998">--
Filipus Klutiero
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.philippecloutier.com">http://www.philippecloutier.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>