Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>> On Saturday 04 August 2007 09:56, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> I don't see any need to have any public facing pages on a Wiki - are we
>> too lazy to write things up for the website when we want to present them
>> to the world? It's not like it's difficult to do.
>
> Yes, in fact it is. It is a complete pain in the butt in comparison to
> editing a wiki. If I want a page added to the .Org I have to:

Ever tried techdocs? ;-)

> A. Understand CVS

No, no need for that. You can just send your files to -www.

> B. Understand HTML

That, there is need for. Personally, I know a lot of people who find
that easier than some of the weird wiki markup thingies around :-P

I think the big problem for testing that is that our web *layout* (the
CSS and div-ifying) is very complex. I'd really love to see that
simplified - by someone who know it well enough.

But the truth is, most pages would be perfectly fine written just using
a couple of <h> and <p> tags, along with possibly a couple of <a
href>:s. As long as you don't need to muck about with complex layout
stuff, that's trivial. And AFAIK, you can't really muck around with said
complex layout stuff in wikis either, without hard-coding CSS and HTML
the same way.

> C. Understand patch

No need for that if you're adding a page. And not really needed if
you're changing one either, as one of the web guys can take care of that.

> Worse, if I want to test my changes:

There should be no need to test your changes unless you're writing
*code*. Which is not what we're talking about here, really.

> The only time anyone has to do any type of coding is if we want a new
> feature such as my blog.

Same goes for postgresql.org - as long as you're just putting in text,
there is no need for the majority of the points in your list.

> Now that I have written all of this. I am not suggesting that we change
> our web infrastructure. I am however suggesting that we stop insulting
> people and looking very arrogant about our, "It isn't like it is that
> hard", because it is indeed hard and much harder than it should be.

If it really is that hard (and I honestly don't believe that it is, but
I'm willing to accept that others find it that way), then we *should*
fix it. The hard part is agreeing on *how*, because there are so many
requirements...

> Oh, and have a great weekend! :)

You, too!

//Magnus