Re: RFC: Wiki for Debian-Women
I'm a little late popping in here, sorry...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:08:27 +0200, Jutta Wrage <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Anja's example does show (though she did not spend the time, to make it
> more D-W like as confuguration takes some time, and noone wants to make
> too lot in vain) that a wiki could mostly look like d-w does.
At least to me there was never much doubt about that. Anything that
can use a style sheet can resemble the debian-women website.
> There have been suggestions to use a wiki beside the normal web pages
> to have a working area, where we can keep
> todo lists
> fast information
> The advantage is, that it is much easier to keep everyone working in
> and supporting d-w on track with information.
I'm just not convinced that a wiki is the best tool for the job,
though I realize that everyone seems to think they are really "cool".
There are a lot of options for various aspects of project
coordination: mailing lists, forums, static HTML, content management
systems, templating systems, wikis, version control systems, chat
rooms, IRC/jabber, etc., and everyone has their personal favorites.
I don't have anything against wikis. I just think that they were
designed for a rather specific purpose, and are most useful in
situations where you want a large amount of people to be able to
generate and edit a large amount of rather arbitrary content. I don't
think that this is what we are wanting to do, so I don't think a wiki
is the best choice. It seems to me that it would be best to clearly
map out what we want to do, who we want to work on it, and how we want
to work on it and then choose a tool, rather than choose a tool and
decide that we will adapt the chosen tool to our purpose whether it
was designed to be used that way or not. I *personally* think that a
combination of templating system and version control system would be
the best idea, but that's just my opinion on the matter.
That said, if everyone wants a wiki, it's not going to bother me if we
have one. I do think it would be a big mistake for the whole site to
be a wiki, so if we have one I think we should only use it for "works
in progress" where public collaboration is necessary (as has been
suggested by others).