RE: netbeans.org design changes

Hi Jack,

> > 1. Move the Edge newsletter to a project so it can 
> > be browsable as edge.netbeans.org. By doing this 
> > you can also have Edge editors without them needing 
> > access to the whole webspace. 

> Very true, and that is a problem right now.  However 
> ... :-)  I have another plan ... I'm not sure if this 
> will be possible, but I was wondering if we could set 
> up a web-admin based tool on our netbeans.info host 
> (where we are able to do PHP/MySQL stuff), to replace 
> the whole CVS/XML setup completely.  That way any 
> (authenticated) person with a browser could work on 
> translations, no XML knowledge required, no CVS 
> account required.

I like that idea. It would be even good for general 
webcontent. More Wiki style of editing of pages ;)

> It would also, I hope, make it easier for translation 
> teams to split up the work - the tool would easily 
> allow you to translate just one story from an issue.

True.

> What do you think ?  I stress that this is just an 
> idea now, I am sure there are some issues I haven't 
> thought about; even if we decide to do that it is 
> months away at least.

Understood ;)

> > 2. Use the <modulename>.netbeans.org more to get 
> >    information out. A module owner will be more 
> >    involved once people start 'complaining' about 
> >    the documentation.

> I am 100% in support of this idea, I really think 
> this would help things.  The problem has always 
> been getting development teams to spend time/effort 
> on their websites.  Some teams do of course, some 
> of the module sites are great.  But certainly not 
> most.

Well, the best thing would be to start writing up 
guidelines for documentation and slowly moving 
documentation to the appropiate modules. And slowly
make the general www module smaller ;)

> > 3. Make the planning documents for 4.0 and later 
> >    more prominent.
> > 
> > 4. Move everything that is older than 2 years to 
> >    an archive, I know, touchy, but people don't 
> >    like to have to go through documents that are 
> >    obsoleted.

> Agreed on both.  Let's try to address these going 
> forward ...

Should I compile a list of files that have an old 
datestamp? 

> Thanks for the ideas!

No problem ;)

Manfred Riem
[email protected]