Hi! Here's a couple of tasks you could pick if you wish to move things forward regarding Tor website: Create a sitemap for the current torproject.org website ------------------------------------------------------- It would be great to have a better idea of what the website already contains. An inventory of what is already there, which personas it would interest, what ought to be split, recycled or simply thrown away would be really useful to think about the organization of the new website. If you wonder where to put the result, it can be done directly on the relevant ticket: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10591 or on a dedicated wiki page, waiting to existing: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/Website/OldSitemap Experiment using some static website generators ----------------------------------------------- The wiki page currently list three static website generators, namely Pelican, Jekyll and Middleman. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/Website#Engine It would truly help if some folks could start experimenting with them so we get a better feeling of how much they could be fit for the Tor Project's website or not. As content, feel free to convert the some of the current WML website https://svn.torproject.org/svn/website/trunk or to use some of what ultrasandwidth has scrapped from blog.tpo: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10479 Design a new navigation system ------------------------------ The navigation on the current Tor website has been said to be confusing. There is the top-level bar, then the strange “Download, Volunteer, Donate” buttons, and the second or third level navigation on the left… I think we could start brainstorming around some design drafts on how this could be made better. Even if it's not likely to be what we end up with, using the 2010 original sitemap is probably still relevant to think about how pages could be organized: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/raw-attachment/ticket/10591/tor-pro... These are only what I can come up with. If you have an idea of another concrete things that you thing could help moving us forward, please go ahead! (Thanks Rey for proof reading this mail.) -- Lunar <lunar@torproject.org>
Lunar, thanks a bunch for putting this together.
It would truly help if some folks could start experimenting with [static generators] so we get a better feeling of how much they could be fit for the Tor Project's website or not.
It sounds like a few people* are definitely capable of starting on this. My experience with Jekyll is limited to my own website, but I am extremely interested in hacking on an implementation of Middleman or Jekyll with some folks. Perhaps this discussion can be-picked up*, and a git repo can be initiated :). And as lunar indicated, we have some content to play around with, including the blog posts which were scraped a couple weeks ago [1]. * = [Tor www-team] [Back-end][CMS] thread [1] = https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10479 -ultrasandwich On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Lunar <lunar@torproject.org> wrote:
Hi!
Here's a couple of tasks you could pick if you wish to move things forward regarding Tor website:
Create a sitemap for the current torproject.org website -------------------------------------------------------
It would be great to have a better idea of what the website already contains. An inventory of what is already there, which personas it would interest, what ought to be split, recycled or simply thrown away would be really useful to think about the organization of the new website.
If you wonder where to put the result, it can be done directly on the relevant ticket: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10591 or on a dedicated wiki page, waiting to existing: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/Website/OldSitemap
Experiment using some static website generators -----------------------------------------------
The wiki page currently list three static website generators, namely Pelican, Jekyll and Middleman. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/Website#Engine
It would truly help if some folks could start experimenting with them so we get a better feeling of how much they could be fit for the Tor Project's website or not.
As content, feel free to convert the some of the current WML website https://svn.torproject.org/svn/website/trunk or to use some of what ultrasandwidth has scrapped from blog.tpo: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10479
Design a new navigation system ------------------------------
The navigation on the current Tor website has been said to be confusing. There is the top-level bar, then the strange “Download, Volunteer, Donate” buttons, and the second or third level navigation on the left…
I think we could start brainstorming around some design drafts on how this could be made better.
Even if it's not likely to be what we end up with, using the 2010 original sitemap is probably still relevant to think about how pages could be organized: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/raw-attachment/ticket/10591/tor-pro...
These are only what I can come up with. If you have an idea of another concrete things that you thing could help moving us forward, please go ahead!
(Thanks Rey for proof reading this mail.)
-- Lunar <lunar@torproject.org> ________________________________________________________________________ Tor Website Team coordination mailing-list
To unsubscribe or change other options, please visit: https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/www-team
Perhaps this discussion can be-picked up*, and a git repo can be initiated :)
+1 from me. Thoughts on going about this? Initial questions: * In the case of evaluating static publishing tools, would it be a case of creating a repo for each then having folk hack on those? * Where would these initial repos be created? GitHub? Elsewhere? Does it even matter? Rey On Monday, 20 January 2014 at 11:16, Eric Schaefer wrote:
Lunar, thanks a bunch for putting this together.
It would truly help if some folks could start experimenting with [static generators] so we get a better feeling of how much they could be fit for the Tor Project's website or not.
It sounds like a few people* are definitely capable of starting on this. My experience with Jekyll is limited to my own website, but I am extremely interested in hacking on an implementation of Middleman or Jekyll with some folks. Perhaps this discussion can be-picked up*, and a git repo can be initiated :). And as lunar indicated, we have some content to play around with, including the blog posts which were scraped a couple weeks ago [1].
* = [Tor www-team] [Back-end][CMS] thread [1] = https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10479
-ultrasandwich
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Lunar <lunar@torproject.org (mailto:lunar@torproject.org)> wrote:
Hi!
Here's a couple of tasks you could pick if you wish to move things forward regarding Tor website:
Create a sitemap for the current torproject.org (http://torproject.org) website -------------------------------------------------------
It would be great to have a better idea of what the website already contains. An inventory of what is already there, which personas it would interest, what ought to be split, recycled or simply thrown away would be really useful to think about the organization of the new website.
If you wonder where to put the result, it can be done directly on the relevant ticket: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10591 or on a dedicated wiki page, waiting to existing: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/Website/OldSitemap
Experiment using some static website generators -----------------------------------------------
The wiki page currently list three static website generators, namely Pelican, Jekyll and Middleman. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/Website#Engine
It would truly help if some folks could start experimenting with them so we get a better feeling of how much they could be fit for the Tor Project's website or not.
As content, feel free to convert the some of the current WML website https://svn.torproject.org/svn/website/trunk or to use some of what ultrasandwidth has scrapped from blog.tpo: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10479
Design a new navigation system ------------------------------
The navigation on the current Tor website has been said to be confusing. There is the top-level bar, then the strange “Download, Volunteer, Donate” buttons, and the second or third level navigation on the left…
I think we could start brainstorming around some design drafts on how this could be made better.
Even if it's not likely to be what we end up with, using the 2010 original sitemap is probably still relevant to think about how pages could be organized: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/raw-attachment/ticket/10591/tor-pro...
These are only what I can come up with. If you have an idea of another concrete things that you thing could help moving us forward, please go ahead!
(Thanks Rey for proof reading this mail.)
-- Lunar <lunar@torproject.org (mailto:lunar@torproject.org)> ________________________________________________________________________ Tor Website Team coordination mailing-list
To unsubscribe or change other options, please visit: https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/www-team
________________________________________________________________________ Tor Website Team coordination mailing-list
To unsubscribe or change other options, please visit: https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/www-team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Perhaps this discussion can be-picked up*, and a git repo can be initiated :)
+1 from me.
Thoughts on going about this? Initial questions:
* In the case of evaluating static publishing tools, would it be a case of creating a repo for each then having folk hack on those?
* Where would these initial repos be created? GitHub? Elsewhere? Does it even matter? Perhaps staying on the Projects infrastructure would be best, as the integration with the trac would probably help (as opposed to opening another bugtracker on GitHub).
Although github does have the advantage of providing pull requests and similar things... In which case we would need n >= 1 active maintainers who check and manage pull requests, while people can work on their own forks. I know of some people who have problems with things being hosted on GitHub, and I don't know what the stance inside the Tor Project is on that. Andrew / Lunar, what would your opinion be? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJS3Q0BXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ4NEM0ODA5N0EzQUY3RDU1MTg5QTc3QUMx NjlGOTYyNDM0MDg4MjVFAAoJEBafliQ0CIJeR3sQAJI030KzvtDSahhqE2x8S71E MFCq9Xp1YoMJBhNNitLiA0vf4Jtg26b4/gz8Evn2cqeQM62sNYOHJVaNZHtU6O27 sWeuyD1qbKDMKGXFAcUmHSChH3HIA3AeiZdgUog3njWgtEF8wu9XBtYB3Q7oA5DR 6QGSVasfjflX0+yxl/mbc7ul1oGlX/KjOR8jwj6pDleF/+Bcl6Mj30HFfWMmLePJ Qj1X87gwQ3BOculG457PzvZ58vlNxsnA+AQYDtBbzv9tXFTPmuCr/TbkiB9EGNpS 5NzrLT1YS5EfMp++NUQMugRm6bVcozYOrZ4E6l8XTinK2GZFaqQQg9WSmgIzPhOD RHTRx3a3U9hwVZXLsU4tcuLHeV9JxbWdyYLa7l/BJ1WRg9CO0B/XjLhxR1Zyf6di EdYDOUkGi6Vq/xd/6YDwNMncIrybrwH9HvBx08de+iJkU980x3ZcQL+4XQi4/BzK jRHDsZIlRdCJDe1wZBMhxWb2fUr8yjVWEaD6hh1FQinLQp1Ii+McsTmnf+xeSM1t A4AZ4apJ1hchZ+kR/7N3QILdaCg6T0z02u1udTkjUTjvrHlLy4WUYOXv/79or20u E+smHHA8+LY4wQ1JCwRgOKjzkwF0L7Ny43eXCNltfF+rNLnwuaYuhHT7v59gM8uE pZheLaDxEFC7bqfAKZux =39fR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I can provide hosting for a git repo on my Dreamhost shared server, if GitHub is a problem for some people. I’ll gladly hand over SSH credentials to someone who knows how to setup gitolite (https://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/) or another solution for multi-user git hosting. If this doesn’t work on a shared hosting environment, then maybe someone else has a VPS instance they can throw out there? GitHub is nice for issue tracking and moving quickly, and it’s exceptionally easy for newbies (i.e. content, if it’s in markdown files, can be edited right in the GitHub UI), but I totally understand reservations that some people have with a third-party service. Just my two cents. On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Max Jakob Maass <max@velcommuta.de> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Perhaps this discussion can be-picked up*, and a git repo can be initiated :)
+1 from me.
Thoughts on going about this? Initial questions:
* In the case of evaluating static publishing tools, would it be a case of creating a repo for each then having folk hack on those?
* Where would these initial repos be created? GitHub? Elsewhere? Does it even matter? Perhaps staying on the Projects infrastructure would be best, as the integration with the trac would probably help (as opposed to opening another bugtracker on GitHub).
Although github does have the advantage of providing pull requests and similar things... In which case we would need n >= 1 active maintainers who check and manage pull requests, while people can work on their own forks.
I know of some people who have problems with things being hosted on GitHub, and I don't know what the stance inside the Tor Project is on that. Andrew / Lunar, what would your opinion be?
________________________________________________________________________ Tor Website Team coordination mailing-list
To unsubscribe or change other options, please visit: https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/www-team
+1 for GitHub just because: * Many people have a GitHub account and have all the moving parts set up to jump straight into development * I find the issue tracker very user friendly and simple for non developers to use Rey On Monday, 20 January 2014 at 12:45, Eric Schaefer wrote:
I can provide hosting for a git repo on my Dreamhost shared server, if GitHub is a problem for some people. I’ll gladly hand over SSH credentials to someone who knows how to setup gitolite (https://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/) or another solution for multi-user git hosting. If this doesn’t work on a shared hosting environment, then maybe someone else has a VPS instance they can throw out there?
GitHub is nice for issue tracking and moving quickly, and it’s exceptionally easy for newbies (i.e. content, if it’s in markdown files, can be edited right in the GitHub UI), but I totally understand reservations that some people have with a third-party service. Just my two cents.
On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Max Jakob Maass <max@velcommuta.de (mailto:max@velcommuta.de)> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Perhaps this discussion can be-picked up*, and a git repo can be initiated :)
+1 from me.
Thoughts on going about this? Initial questions:
* In the case of evaluating static publishing tools, would it be a case of creating a repo for each then having folk hack on those?
* Where would these initial repos be created? GitHub? Elsewhere? Does it even matter? Perhaps staying on the Projects infrastructure would be best, as the integration with the trac would probably help (as opposed to opening another bugtracker on GitHub).
Although github does have the advantage of providing pull requests and similar things... In which case we would need n >= 1 active maintainers who check and manage pull requests, while people can work on their own forks.
I know of some people who have problems with things being hosted on GitHub, and I don't know what the stance inside the Tor Project is on that. Andrew / Lunar, what would your opinion be? ________________________________________________________________________ Tor Website Team coordination mailing-list
To unsubscribe or change other options, please visit: https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/www-team
________________________________________________________________________ Tor Website Team coordination mailing-list
To unsubscribe or change other options, please visit: https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/www-team
Rey Dhuny:
+1 for GitHub just because:
* Many people have a GitHub account and have all the moving parts set up to jump straight into development
* I find the issue tracker very user friendly and simple for non developers to use
Please refrain from using the GitHub issue tracker. As Max pointed out, we already have one (trac.tpo) and we should not spread information in multiple places. And again, Git is decentralized. Anyone should feel free to host their repository wherever they feel comfortable. What's important here is the content! -- Lunar <lunar@torproject.org>
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:48:19PM +0100, max@velcommuta.de wrote 2.2K bytes in 0 lines about: : I know of some people who have problems with things being hosted on : GitHub, and I don't know what the stance inside the Tor Project is on : that. Andrew / Lunar, what would your opinion be? Github is facebook for developers. When I have to share, I either setup my own git repo somewhere or use gitorious. Here's what I started a long time ago, https://gitorious.org/tor-web-conversion -- Andrew http://tpo.is/contact pgp 0x6B4D6475
Rey Dhuny:
* Where would these initial repos be created? GitHub? Elsewhere? Does it even matter?
It does not matter much. People should use what they are the most comfortable with. Unfortunately, it cannot be on Tor Project's infrastructure because with the current setup we cannot give write access to newcomers. At some point, we will move a repository for the website there, but not until we are closer to replace the current setup. -- Lunar <lunar@torproject.org>
participants (5)
-
andrew＠torproject.is -
Eric Schaefer -
Lunar -
Max Jakob Maass -
Rey Dhuny