[Tor www-team] Website proposal

[thomas lörtsch]

On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:03, Lunar <lunar at torproject.org> wrote:

> thomas lörtsch:
>> 2) Content editors are usually keen to put stuff they wrote online
>> immediatly and not have to wait for an admin to hit the publish
>> button. Would that be possible? Like: "give editor A the permission to
>> edit and publish stuff in category B or specifically on page C”?
> 
> Who are we talking about? I'm not sure this has been clearly identified
> yet.

E.g. me working on visionion. I don’t need or want to or maybe even should not be able to edit any other pages on the site than the one describing my project. But I’d like to see my edits on “my” page immediatly published and live on the internets instead of having to wait for or having to bug an admin - not the least because instant gratification makes for better motivation. And I would feel more “in control".

> 
>> 3) Although I haven’t done any research on that topic lately I suppose
>> there are CMS that allow to publish static sites, provide interfaces
>> for finegrained access control, configurable wysiwyg editors etc.
>> What’s the benefit of using Jekyll and Git? Robustness? Less
>> administration and strain on the server (no DB)? Familiarity of tools?
>> My apologies if this has already been discussed!
> 
> The Tor website needs to be easily reproduced on as many different
> mirrors as possible. Using a website generator that creates static
> content is the easiest way to create a website that can be easily
> synchronized on multiple servers.
> 
> For the Tor website, I don't really see what could require content
> that needs to be generated on the fly.

The need to publish static sites is out of question and I don’t see the need for on-the-fly-generation neither. My question is if a proper CMS wouldn’t be beneficial for administering user rights management and could provide niceties like a wysiwyg editor. I reckon there are CMS that can produce a static site with the push of a button just like Jekyll can. Again my apologies if this has been discussed before or if the can of worm it opens is just to unbearable.

Ciao
Thomas


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/www-team/attachments/20150929/295eb1b0/attachment.sig>