[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Meeting Log - 2008-07-21



18:02 < JonRob> who's around?
18:02  * ianweller (ish)
18:03 < JonRob> anyone else?
18:03 < ivazquez> I am.
18:03 < ianweller> ricky: ping
18:03 < JonRob> herlo?
18:04  * ricky 
18:05 < JonRob> ok, well shall we get started?
18:05 < JonRob> i'm not sure there's lots we can do today anyhow, but we can see how we go
18:05 -!- ricky changed the topic of #fedora-websites to: Websites Meeting
18:05 < ricky> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
18:05 < JonRob> giarc - looks like there's been great progress on the planet issues
18:06 < JonRob> so much so i think we can cross it off our list?
18:06 < ricky> I don't think he could make this one :-(
18:06 < ianweller> (giarc is not on irc, and can't attend)
18:06 < ricky> We haven't fixed the problem yet, but we have determined that it's not our bug.
18:06 < ricky> The but on the mozilla bugzilla is several years old, though, which is unfortunate.
18:06 < JonRob> ricky: did you see the thread today?
18:06 < ricky> **bug
18:06 < JonRob> giarc has a version that *seems* to not have the problem
18:07 < JonRob> a version of planet that is
18:07 < ricky> Oh, I didn't see the changed version
18:07 < JonRob> well me and nicu both tested and neither of us saw a problem either
18:07 < JonRob> :)
18:07 < ricky> Cool, let's keep the item there until it's pushed
18:08 < JonRob> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2008-July/msg00117.html
18:08 < JonRob> ok np
18:08 < ricky> I'll try to take a look at applying his fix to the global CSS later on, if that's where the change is
18:08 < JonRob> cool
18:08 < herlo> here
18:09 < JonRob> evenin'
18:09 < JonRob> ok, next up
18:09 < JonRob> oh...do we need to review the test matrix?
18:09 < JonRob> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Planet/TestMatrix
18:09 < ricky> Strange, his version is unchanged.  HM.
18:10 < JonRob> ricky? giarc's repo?
18:10 < ricky> Well, the version at http://craigt.fedorapeople.org/planet/
18:10 < JonRob> hmm i wonder where the fix is? post to list and ask him for clarification?
18:10 < ricky> The files are identical to the one in http://ricky.fedorapeople.org/planet/ (which were directly wgetted)
18:11 < ricky> I do recall having a particularly hard time reproducing on that date
18:12 < JonRob> hmm
18:12 < ricky> The test matrix should be updated to mention that you should test with smooth scrolling on for the best chance of reproductoin
18:12 < ricky> **reproduction
18:12  * ricky does that
18:13 < JonRob> good work ricky :)
18:14 < JonRob> i'll drop a note to the list asking giarc for clarification on the fix and what needs to happen for it to get pushed live/taken off the task list
18:14 < ricky> Thanks
18:14 < ricky> I'm slightly afraid at how this is a 5 year-old bug
18:15 < ricky> Looks like there's a request to make 3.1 block on it, though - so let's hope for good progress
18:15 < JonRob> have we poked and prodded mozilla?
18:15 < JonRob> ah cool
18:15 < JonRob> are we ready to move on?
18:15 < ricky> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215055)
18:15 < ricky> Yup :-)
18:15 < JonRob> especially as ivazquez is with us :)
18:15 < JonRob> what's happening with get-fedora?
18:16 < ivazquez> I haven't been involved with the new efforts.
18:16 < JonRob> oh, lol our task lists needs updating!
18:17 < JonRob> are you still interested on working on that, or would you like us to remove your ownership of it?
18:17 < JonRob> (along with giarc's)
18:17 < ricky> JonRob: Curious: What page are you referring to with ivazquez on it?
18:17 < JonRob> oh lol
18:17 < JonRob> sorry
18:17 < JonRob> it's late
18:17 < JonRob> i confused ivazquez and juank
18:18 < ricky> Heh, all right
18:18 < JonRob> heh...no wonder things didn't seem to make sense there!
18:18 < JonRob> ok...well juank_prada isn't here
18:18 < JonRob> and neither is giarc
18:18 < JonRob> (sorry ivazquez :))
18:18 < JonRob> so we can skip this one
18:18 < JonRob> maybe we shuold ask for progress report on list thoguh?
18:19 < ivazquez> I think that's fair.
18:19 < ricky> Yeah
18:20 < JonRob> ok, done
18:20  * ricky wonders if mizmo-out is still vacationing :-)
18:20 < JonRob> mizmo-out, is out
18:20 < JonRob> and so is spevack
18:20 < ricky> Ohh, or she's on a bus
18:21 < JonRob> does anyone have anything they'd like to add on spins?
18:21  * JonRob loves busses
18:21  * ricky loves planes
18:21 < JonRob> heh
18:22 < JonRob> ok...ricky: any luck with a site map for fp.o?
18:22 < JonRob> also, release cycle?
18:23 -!- daMaestro [n=jon fedora/damaestro] has quit "Leaving"
18:23 -!- epkphoto [n=epkphoto ip98-169-237-170 dc dc cox net] has joined #fedora-websites
18:23 < ricky> Nothing with the site map - we do have a domain list, though
18:23 < ricky> I'd like to hear discussion about the release cycle
18:24 < ricky> For what we do with our website, it sounds like we can work similarly to how docs works, which could also give translators something to aim for
18:24 -!- nman64 [n=n-man fedora/nman64] has quit Remote closed the connection
18:24 < ricky> So we can formalize and give early warning for things like string freezes and requirements for translations
18:24 < JonRob> ok
18:25 < JonRob> so would that involve in a development branch (aka beat in docs' speak?) or just a feature freeze?
18:25 < JonRob>  - feature = string
18:25 < JonRob> :S
18:25 < ricky> Well.  We don't do the development branch thing anymore.
18:26 < ricky> So it's kind of decentralized (which git is nice for)
18:26 < ricky> Everybody's personal git repo is their own "development branch"
18:26 < JonRob> ok sure
18:26 < ricky> So it should be as simple as saying: "By this date, no more non-translation pushes"
18:26 < JonRob> so you'd just like to aim for a string freeze on the live?
18:27 < ricky> Yeah.  That way, we can at least aim for maximum coverage during release.
18:27 < ricky> **releases
18:27 < ricky> The way spevack mentioned before is also something to think about
18:27 < JonRob> ok that sounds like an extremely sensible plan to me!
18:27 < JonRob> ?
18:27 < ricky> As he said, we pretty much have updates around releases, and maybe one update in between
18:27 < ricky> So should we have releases every 3 months or so?
18:28 < JonRob> oh ok - so there would be no changes to live, or again just string?
18:28 < JonRob> what about introducing new content?
18:28 < ricky> Hm.
18:29 < ricky> When I say releases, it's 100% for the benefit of l10n, so it'd always only apply to strings.
18:29 < JonRob> ok that makes sense to me
18:30 < JonRob> and every 3 months certainly sounds reasonable, though perhaps we should speak the l10n people to see how much time they need?
18:30 < ricky> I take back what I said about the 3 months, though.
18:30 < JonRob> or maybe you alreayd have, i don't know lol
18:30 < ricky> I think we should just freeze before/during Fedora releases for a set amount of time before we go back to adding new content, etc.
18:31 < ricky> So the entire point is to aim for as complete as possible translations around releases.
18:31 < ricky> Yup - from what we heard last release, 2-3 weeks seemed good for them, but I'll bring it up again
18:31 < ricky> I still need to see if glezos has some suggestions for how to manage htis
18:31 < ricky> **this
18:32 < JonRob> i don't think there's a huge difference between either, although focusing on releases provides a bit more flexibility
18:32 < ricky> Yeah
18:32 -!- stickster is now known as stickster_afk
18:32 < JonRob> seems to me like you know where you're going wit this :)
18:32 < ricky> So this is good - I think we formalized my vague ideas a bit
18:33 < JonRob> do you need any assistance re: the site map?
18:33 < JonRob> what can we do to help here?
18:33 < ricky> Sorry - what was the purpose of a site map again?
18:34 < JonRob> urm...lol if i'd minuted last week's meeting by now we could have looked that up easily!
18:34 < JonRob> it definitely came up though, and seemed like it would be very useful
18:34 < JonRob> let me have a quick look through the log
18:35 < JonRob> hmm maybe it wasn't last week :S
18:36 < JonRob> ah, ok
18:36 < JonRob> it was the week before
18:36 < JonRob> apparently we were discussing hte possibility of a cms
18:36 < ricky> Ahh, that.
18:36 < ricky> quaid: ping
18:36 < JonRob> and felt the need for a more clearly defined vision for the role of fp.o and docs
18:36 < JonRob> etc
18:36 < quaid> ricky: pong
18:36 < JonRob> and how much content will be expanded in the future
18:36  * quaid forgot this meeting time :/
18:36 < JonRob> hello quaid :)
18:37  * quaid reading back a bit
18:37 < quaid> 'sup?
18:37 < ricky> Talking about the need for a CMS
18:38 < quaid> yep
18:38 < JonRob> plone ftw
18:38 < quaid> har!
18:38 < quaid> a cms could solve a bunch of our main site and docs site problems, I reckon
18:39 < JonRob> actually, in all seriousness, why don't we re-investigate plone? or were the problems so diabolical? because i imagine infra did a fair amount of work on that already...
18:39 < ricky> Once http://genshi.edgewall.org/ticket/129 is fixed, our worse buildscript problems should be gone (I'm hoping)
18:39 < ricky> JonRob: Plone is the kind of CMS which requires a full-time expert to get anything done with.
18:40 < ricky> It's probably overkill for the main page as well.
18:40 < quaid> also there are python version problems
18:40 < JonRob> ok np
18:40 < quaid> that aren't solveable, afaict now
18:40 < ricky> I don't want to sound bitter, but I witnessed the GNOME Website Team literally die off while trying to deploy a plone site.
18:40 < JonRob> i think a more immediate question before we start trying to choose a cms
18:40 < ricky> The only expert was hard to reach, and progress halted HARD.
18:40 < JonRob> is what content is there on fp.o now, and what content will be there in the future
18:41 < JonRob> which brings us back to the site map :p
18:41 < ricky> Also, they were not able to find/demonstrate a working l10n solution that I was happy with, to be honest.
18:41 < quaid> there always seems to be a relatively thin layer of content on the main site
18:41 < ricky> JonRob: I think the sidebar does that pretty well already :-)
18:41 < quaid> and, sure, a site map would help with understanding that
18:41 < JonRob> quaid: something i'd like to change at least a little
18:41 < ricky> I think that's the full use case for our main site (vs. the wiki)
18:41 < quaid> my main reason for a CMS is to make DIY publishing easier for various groups (Websites, Docs, etc.)
18:42 < JonRob> quaid: yeah i'd certainly appreciate the extra ease of use
18:42 < quaid> docs.fp.o languishes because it sucks to update :)
18:42 < ricky> I think docs could use the publishing workflow stuff from a CMS.  I'm not sure that websites needs that as much, though
18:42 < JonRob> ricky, true
18:42 < JonRob> my true was to your earlier comment
18:42 < quaid> that should be flexible within the CMS
18:42 < JonRob> re: websites and ease of publishing workflow, there are often small tweaks and changes i'd like to make
18:43 < JonRob> or new content i'd like to add
18:43 < quaid> ricky: that is, you can definie different areas to have different levels of workflow
18:43 -!- ianweller is now known as ianweller_afk
18:43 < JonRob> that i loathe to do because of having to mess around with git
18:43 < ricky> Yeah :-(
18:43 < quaid> and, fwiw, if we had a workflow with the entire site
18:43 < quaid> it would be easy to add an "Edit by docs person" step to any content changes
18:43 < ricky> On the infra site, we're currently working to get a wildcard cert for lang.fedoraproject.org sites
18:43 < quaid> if we wanted to QA content before it went live in that main, highly visible aread
18:44 < ricky> That will solve one problem that we've been having with it being hard to put website test instances up without special config
18:44 < JonRob> which would fit in nicely with docs new role :)
18:44 < JonRob> ok, so how do we move forward from here?
18:44 < ricky> quaid: I'm curious: How does - say, Red Hat's docs team do this kind of review?
18:45 < quaid> ricky: content review?  or tool review?
18:45 < ricky> Content review
18:46 < ricky> I still have no objections if we can find a CMS that's low learning curve, handles translations well, and that infra doesn't mind running :-)
18:46 < JonRob> ricky: lol that's quite a shopping list!
18:46 < ricky> Heh.
18:47 < ricky> Most of the complexity is the translations part.  If I didn't bother having fedoraproject.org translated, the build process would be completely trivial and unintimidating
18:48 < JonRob> ah...if only all the world spoke one language
18:48 < JonRob> lol
18:48 < ricky> Esperanto?  ;-)
18:48 < JonRob> coming from a person who's currently learning language 4 & 5
18:48  * herlo prefers Lojban
18:48 -!- ianweller_afk is now known as ianweller
18:48 < ricky> Chinese already has the largest user group :-P
18:49 < ricky> But yeah, put translations pretty high up on the list for anybody that's doing l10n research
18:49 < JonRob> ok, so how about over the next week we hunt for a cms?
18:50 < ricky> A simple checklist might help
18:50 < JonRob> and i'll update the tasks list to say the sidebar on fp.o pretty much = sitemap
18:50 < ricky> To begin with:
18:50 < ricky> * Check how active development is
18:50 < ricky> * Check security record
18:50 < ricky> * Setup a test instance, make sure it runs smoothly
18:50 < ricky> * How hard is it to get a Pig Latin version translated/up?  Does it break the workflow for translators?
18:51  * ianweller /facepalm
18:51 < JonRob> should we not look into translations before the hassle of a test instance?
18:51 < ianweller> pig latin. oh boy... ;)
18:51 < ricky> * How well does the publication workflow fit with with docs/websites could use?
18:51 < ricky> Substitute that for whatever language you happen to know :-)
18:52  * ricky might still have a relatively complete Pig Latin translation of FAS in his home dir somewhere...
18:52 < JonRob> where do we want to stick this info for people to see?
18:52 < ricky> And yeah, if it doesn't have translations, period - don't bother with the test instance, I guess
18:52 < ricky> Extra points if it's in Fedora :-)  Otherwise, the next step once we have a successful candidate will be to get it in
18:53 < ricky> JonRob: Let's just leave it in the tasks page for now
18:53 < ricky> I'd be pretty surprised and excited if we got good leads on this, to be honest :-)
18:53 < JonRob> ok...but what about our small list of requirements?
18:53 < JonRob> squeeze it in there?
18:53 < JonRob> why not :)
18:53 < ricky> Sure thing
18:54 < ricky> Make it nice and convenient
18:54 < ricky> Anybody else have anything to add to the checklist?
18:54 < JonRob> ok...
18:54 < JonRob> silence sounds good to me
18:54 < ricky> quaid: Would you be able to elaborate on what "publication workflow" means in that last item?
18:54 < JonRob> lol
18:55  * ricky just stuffed the term in there :-)
18:56 < ricky> JonRob: If you're editing Tasks right now, mind adding a link to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/PageRequests in there?
18:56 < JonRob> ricky: i wasn't gonna get to it until the morning
18:56 < ricky> JonRob: No worries - I can take care of that quickly now
18:57 < JonRob> ricky, i think publication workflow is the way it gets from draft to final version
18:57 < ricky> (Just wanted to avoid having do an edit merge)
18:57 < JonRob> so it would ordinarily look something like:
18:57 < JonRob> i write a doc, or several of us write a doc
18:57 < JonRob> mark it as needing editing
18:57 < JonRob> or review
18:57 < JonRob> and somebody else looks over it for style/grammar/content accuracy
18:58 < JonRob> they mark it as done or return to author
18:58 < JonRob> and either process starts back again with author
18:58 < JonRob> or it gets pushed live
18:58 < JonRob> though quaid may have something entirely different in mind, that is my experience of various publication workflows :)
18:58 < ricky> Ah, all right
18:59 < JonRob> one thing to note is that free software magazine has all these processes integrated into their site
18:59 < JonRob> though that's drupal based
19:00 < JonRob> but i bet their editor/site developer would be happy to talk with us
19:00 < JonRob> i know tony mobily a little and he's very easy to talk with
19:01 < ricky> This might be a bit dated, but it could be helpful:
19:01 < ricky> http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/CmsRequirements
19:02 < ricky> (and http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/CmsRequirements/CmsTest, maybe)
19:03  * JonRob must leave soon
19:03 -!- ianweller is now known as ianweller_afk
19:04 < ricky> So anybody else have something to bring up?  :-)
19:04 < JonRob> i was going to throw a blog post up wiht the list of usability questions
19:04 < JonRob> to try and get a few more people's responses
19:04 < JonRob> will update on that next week
19:05 < JonRob> also, a new task has appeared at the bottom of our list
19:05 < JonRob> but i think that could be more of an infra issue?
19:05 < ricky> Which one?
19:06 < ricky> The content ownership one?
19:06 < ricky> Er, sponsorship
19:06 < JonRob> group join interstital pages in FAS
19:06 < ricky> Oh.
19:06 < ricky> That's kind of a websites/wiki one.
19:06 < JonRob> oh really?
19:06 < JonRob> actually, i'd quite like to revamp the join page
19:06 < ricky> Basically, we want a better Join page
19:06 < JonRob> lol
19:06 < JonRob> i might tackle that this week
19:07 < JonRob> or at least write content for it
19:07 < ricky> One that outlines the process (i.e. talk to the community before applying to the account system admins group)
19:07 < ricky> Er, "Account System Admins (invite only)" group, I should say :-)
19:07 < JonRob> exactly what i had in mind :)
19:08 < JonRob> is there anything else?
19:08 < ricky> spot might also appreciate something that re-emphasizes the "Use your full name, or your CLA will be revoked"
19:08 < JonRob> ??
19:08  * JonRob missed something, somewhere
19:09 < ricky> Sorry, where did I lose you?
19:09 < JonRob> the comment about spot
19:09 < JonRob> but don't worry about it
19:09 < ricky> I'm just listing a bunch of stuff that might be handy on a high level join page.
19:09 < ricky> Yeah - I was just dumping ideas - we'll want to really drill out what we need at another time
19:10 < JonRob> well, i'll come up with a draft and then we can put our publication workflow knowledge into practice :)
19:10 < JonRob> anyhow, i'm off to sleep now!
19:11 < quaid> sorry I had to disappear in the middle there
19:11 < JonRob> if anyone else has anything else to add this evening
19:11 < quaid> jonrob has the workflow correct, yes
19:11 < JonRob> you guys can take care of it and post the log for me?
19:11 < ricky> JonRob: good night - thanks for doing the meeting
19:11  * ricky will email the log
19:11 < JonRob> cheers!
19:11 < quaid> writer takes draft <=> edit => publish, where publish isn't a return path

Attachment: pgp01n1vX2lgV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]