Future of the oVirt website

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Mf2CRNBB5HrIBekLkGCVl7fFA28A9J5x4 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="KLQQcoDbkQBSA3JhvJxcIEH58dqc2asks"; protected-headers="v1" From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYyBEZXF1w6huZXMgKER1Y2sp?= <duck(a)redhat.com&gt; To: oVirt Infra <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; Cc: Brian Proffitt <bproffit(a)redhat.com&gt;, Garrett LeSage <garrett(a)redhat.com&gt;, Michael Scherer <misc(a)redhat.com&gt; Message-ID: <70270534-4d06-ef32-0a72-b457c96678fe(a)redhat.com&gt; Subject: Future of the oVirt website --KLQQcoDbkQBSA3JhvJxcIEH58dqc2asks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quack, So I just discovered this thread: http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2017-January/029097.html First, it would be nice if the infra team was involved directly, because not everyone is also an oVirt developer (and on this list). Also there are already plans to improve the site system and build and this side-initiative feels like an unexpected and rude disruption of energy already invested. It seems people forget how things were in the past, which leads to going back and forth between a new solution and the previous one. People wish for an easy way to contribute, and this is a legitimate goal. After some time an easy solution make things complicated because it is such a mess and there is no review, so no quality checks, and people wish to have workflows. Then they find it to cumbersome and wish to go back to a marvelous past. And so on again and again. This said, this does not mean the current solution is perfect and we should not think about a better one, but we should recall why we abandoned a wiki to switch to the current solution, so we don't fall into the same traps. What I can say on the topic is that migrating is painful, so we should be cautious. OSAS is not here to force a solution upon you, but the infra team (and the OSAS folks too), have a limited workforce to dedicate to this project, so let's make something realistic. Also we just finish another pass of cleanup of the current site, with migration bugs from the previous Mediawiki solution, so keep in mind it would probably take _years_ to really get something clean. Who's gonna do this?= I also wanted to say I totally disagree on someone's remark (somewhere in the thread) about doc not being as important as code. A lot of content is obsolete or mistaken in the current site already, and this means giving a very bad image of the project, raising the number of silly questions people come to bother you with on ML or IRC, so I think doc should really be taken seriously. As a user it is often I have to dig in the code to find undocumented features, or why a documented one does not work as said, and that's fu^Wutterly boring. So this was to gather all related parties. \_o< --KLQQcoDbkQBSA3JhvJxcIEH58dqc2asks-- --Mf2CRNBB5HrIBekLkGCVl7fFA28A9J5x4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" --Mf2CRNBB5HrIBekLkGCVl7fFA28A9J5x4--