[Debconf-team] Website meeting: tonight 18:00 UTC (Was Re: website presence meeting: crunch time.)
Hi all
Summarising this thread:
You are all *amazing*:
* By consensus we agree to develop wafer for DebConf16.
* We also managed to get a static site up - larjona, we need the
brochure on it please, which is now also done \o/ [0].
I think tonight's meeting will be more of a website sprint, so not all
need to attend (see [2] for my reasoning with this... )
Agenda for meeting [1]:
1. Who is involved with which tasks regarding the website
2. Deadline for system decision:
Next, can we decide a date by which time wafer is developed enough to
demonstrate the system, to people with dc-orga experience relating to
the registration system, let them formulate questions and then write
up a plan of
- what can already be done
- what needs to be implemented
- and how one would implement each feature, along with
a conservative time estimate.
Stefano mentioned this has already started: <link>
Can this process be completed by say, 31 October?
Also, not being a competent website-y person, as poker, am I going
about this the right way?
3.1. Design (colours, fonts) - Feedback on template proposal (there's
a very big one on git - will be smaller soon?... put link here) - can
stand over until next week if needed?
3.2. Overall structure of website
3.3. Content (pre-written and matrix)
4. Placeholder static site - done
http://debconf16.debconf.org
and https://debconf16.debconf.org goes to wiki (indiebio's fault)
needs to be fixed.
5. Requirements doc (.e. what do we want/need and what are the
options) - still needed?
6. Brochure - done! \o/
7. General - any non-website business to discuss?
Cheers
B
P.S. If this email looks weird, sorry, I'm hungover from
brochure-induced lack of sleep and celebrations - I'm building a
house!
[0] - https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debconf-data/dc16.git/plain/fundraising/brochure/DebConf16_Sponsorship_brochure_small_151006_v1.pdf
[1] - https://titanpad.com/443gTylF6p
[2] - https://debconf16-capetown.titanpad.com/2
Reply to: