Re: Query on status of maintainer for Lout Web pages

[Franck Arnaud]

> Having a Wiki would allow all of us to contribute to the page and
> encourage to add content (faq, tutorials, etc).
> 
> What do you guys think ?

Personally I don't like Wikis for such use. The problem with
Wikis is information putrefaction: Wikis sit uneasily between 
chat mediums (mailing lists, newsgroups) and static documentation.
So they often end up very unstructured and littered with useless 
'chat' in the middle of pages which nobody edits out as nobody 
is in charge or thinks they are entitled to edit out others' 
contributions (a perfectly natural feeling).

A wiki can work if it's strongly edited, with one person 
in charge proactively removing junk and editing chat and 
reorganising pages for structural consistency, but usually 
people just put up a wiki and hope for the best.

As for making the site editable, if it's hosted on sourceforge 
it should be no problem: just ask to be added to the list 
of developers and you can edit the website 
(/home/groups/l/lo/lout/htdocs
ssh/scp-able via your sourceforge shell account), or for a bit 
more history we can have the html docs in cvs and automatic 
updates. A CVS updatable site is not very different from 
a wiki, but the way people use CVS should produce less litter 
than the way people use wikis. Plus it's easier to administer 
as there's just a one line cron to add rather than a whole 
wiki setup, no proprietary markup to learn, and it uses less
server resources.

That said it's just my opinion, if people want to install 
and edit a Lout wiki on the lout space on sourceforge and 
think it's better than a static or cvs-backed site, just 
ask me to be listed in the lout project and you can do it,
I'm just not volunteering to administer a wiki, but I
can setup and look after a CVS solution.

--
address@hidden