[Members] Board Minutes 20150302T1600Z
adam at andyet.com
Mon Mar 2 20:01:05 UTC 2015
On Monday, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>, wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 16:58, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
Preview of the home page (with proposed copy) here: http://adambrault.github.io/xmpp.org-static/home.html
The proposed copy deeply concerns me, because much of the lower section appears to be recommending specific technical solutions, in the form of implementations.
Ah, there’s a huge misunderstanding here.
The copy at the bottom in that mockup are demonstrations of potential howto articles, which would be written and submitted by absolutely anyone in the community on any XMPP technology using an open process.
So long as submitted articles are accurate and useful, they will be accepted in the howto section, which will show up as a blog.
The remainder of the plan seems fine to me (though I would prefer to maintain the XEP URLs without redirection; my gut feeling is that this would be safer technically).
Certainly on board with this, too.
I'm not saying I agree enthusiastically with having a starship corridor picture take up the bulk of the XSF's site or the downplaying of the standards process itself - but I'm willing to accept that I don't know much about marketing, and the Board certainly has people who know much more than me.
Just found an interesting photo and added it. I’d love to see another suggestion.
However, the proposal to pick out specific implementations for publicity worries me greatly. I do not think that's a decision that would be wise to make, and moreover, it's not a decision for the website group at all. (Though my suspicion based on the short discussion I've seen suggests the Council are unlikely to be willing to make it either).
Separate that potential discussion of recommendations entirely from what’s present here. It’s not represented at all by this.
Having multiple implementations is a good and valuable thing; it's what keeps us honest as a real standards community, and it keeps us healthy and vibrant.
Recommending only Prosody sends a dangerous message to those developers working on other servers - it says that we do not care about those other servers, only the recommended choice. This is a ridiculous stance to take. It's not that Prosody is a poor server - quite the opposite - but it's hardly the only quality server available. It's not even demonstrably the most popular, or the simplest to install. This is simply a personal preference that's unfortunately been presented as an organizational recommendation.
Similarly, the site mockup talks about web integration using only Stanza.io; again, it's a reasonable library, but are we intending to say it's the only choice? There are several other web libraries after all, and their developers rank amongst the most active members of the community.
The choice of SleekXMPP has similar concerns. I realise there's a certain degree of personal familiarity here, but really, there are countless cross-platform XMPP libraries capable of demonstrating little examples; picking one is very much against the implementation-neutrality I think the XSF should embody.
I do appreciate the sentiment that having useful "developer documentation" content is going to enable XMPP penetration; I don't think alienating 90% of the community is the right way of going about this.
Neither do I and neither does anyone working on the new website. As I said above, the offending copy is strictly examples of the kinds of things that might be covered in a howto blog.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members