=- Andrew K. Bressen wrote on Wed 13.Dec'06 at 15:20:04 -0500 -=
> (I hope the following doesn't come across as overly harsh)
We all focus on the advancement of the game, so no worries.
> I think redoing the entire infrastructure {...} is a heck of a lot
> more work than putting the old site into darcs and doing some editing.
Well, you have to balance effort spent now vs. spent later.
Given the options of this (and technology alternatives), I prefer
the long term advantage: revamp now to an easier
modularizable(?) and maintainable system.
Not being familiar with darcs yet (and generally preferring less
tech- requirements for editorial work) I'd rather see a wiki than
darcs.
> {...} a complete redesign using the new tools, and then
> transcribing and rewriting a couple hundred pages
I think this is not a disadvantage, but rather a chance to update
and throw away old stuff, rewrite it to current state.
> I thought our current problems stemmed from the old server
> crashing and it taking months for the content to get restored.
There were (at least) 2 problems: hardware and human-power.
Mere restoration wouldn't be enough.
> That situation could well have been far worse if the site had
> been wiki-based.
Uh, why?
> Would having a bunch of wiki editors have helped?
Not with the hardware, but with the editing, yes.
> We can get the old site online in weeks; a new wiki and all it
> entails is almost certainly months.
We need to keep the long term in mind, too.
Always looking just at the immediate future is too short.
And "weeks" is too much. I heard Dave just needs to say "Go". ;)
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.