=- Andrew K. Bressen wrote on Wed 20.Dec'06 at 19:30:25 -0500 -=

> That's my point. Maintaining the HTML/PHP design is a more
> common skill than maintaining a wiki design. Keeping those human
> slots filled should be easier.

a) You're too much focused on design.
b) Once the wiki-framework is setup, there is no need for further
tech-knowledge beyond utilizing a web-browser for wiki-content
editors, which is what we primarily need. Not tech-admins.

> If we can't manage decent backups for an HTML/PHP config, could
> we deal with a complicated beast like a database-backed wiki
> going toes-up?

Why is the "beast" more complicated than PHP (and whatever else
might be attached behind it, like a DB, too ...)?

> >> We'll also need admins to do lockouts and reverts of vandalism. 
> > And again, who would this be?
> Again, exactly my point. Wikis are more complicated here, and
> thus likely more work.

Please explain in how far it is "more". And for whom.

> See, either way we need to issue and revoke accounts/passwords
> for access and be able to roll back vandalized content. But,
> with everything in darcs, we only need to know and administer
> one system for doing these tasks.

Single point of failure is what brought up the wiki-idea in the
first place. Again, for content-editing reasons, not technical.
You'd still need a single person who'd have to approve all darcs

> With a wiki, we not only need wiki accounts for editors and wiki
> editors to do rollbacks, we also still need an infrastructure to
> deal with the non-web-accessible wiki design elements as well as
> any non-wiki parts of the site; two sets of passwords/accounts
> and backout procedures, not one. And if there's a seperate set
> of database accounts needed for the wiki, that's a third set
> (albeit a small one).

Uh, everything "behind the scenes" I trust that Dave and friends
know their stuff well enough and will run/host it for the time being.
_That_ need not be our (community's) concern, because this wasn't
the reason for the current discussions/ changes.

> > I fail to see how using darcs to version control a custom PHP
> > based web site is any simpler or easier to maintain than any
> > publicly available content management system, whether that is
> > a Wiki, Zope, or some other software.
> It's simpler because it is fewer components.
> Either way there's an httpd to configure.
> Both will need version control, either for the html/php or for
> the wiki config stuff. 
> But with a wiki, there's also a wiki to configure and its database.

Different wiki systems exist, I trust the tech-admins will find
what suits their requirements best.
Both PHP and wiki solution have to control config, layout/ design
and content separately, I don't see where PHP is "less" work than wiki.
Both need a framework done by experts for non-experts to use
simply to insert their content.

> It's easier to maintain because it's fewer software updates,
> more common skills, and fewer admin interfaces.

All content contributors should _not_ be required to have technical
skills with all used technical components. That's why wiki is
superior. Not all know PHP, even if many do.
Whatever people would have to learn about the PHP-solution, they
could likewise learn about the wiki-system. You don't have to know
much about it anyway, and learn by examples/ templates.

> simpler administration using easy backups
>   (no database dumps)
> fewer parts to administrate
>   (no database and no wiki to know how to use and manage)
> more commonly available skills
>   (HTML and PHP are common; no single wiki or CMS comes close to the
>    amount of expertise out there already, and even someone who hasn't
>    touched HTML or PHP in five years could just start using them again, 
>    while someone five years rusty on a CMS will need to first learn
>    everything that's changed about the CMS)

I guess you're talking here about the tech-admin side.
See above, problem is not tech-manpower, but content.

> But if the geno content was in darcs, I could have spent the
> over four hours I've worked on these posts on editing content.
> And I would have done some content editing back in september
> when I did a wget and a darcs pull and found I couldn't touch
> the actual content.

The same would have worked with a wiki. Edit/ write locally,
insert when accessible.

> having a good site online. But we're not there, and I'll be
> rather surprised if we're there six weeks from now. In the
> meantime, we've got mac users downloading clients and very
> limited online info for them.

D'oh, netrek has survived previous shortcommings of support, this
will not be the final blow.

© 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.