Re: [Dfey-nw-discuss] Website - www.dfey.org

[Tim Dobson]

I'm aware Robert has also replied to this and brought up some new 
points, but I'll reply to each mail separately.
See comments inline:

Mike Little wrote
> The biggest barrier seems to be the endless talking about it. The
> problem with theorising about something is that it can go on forever.
>
> Get a site up (and a wiki is not a site in this context), try it, then
> constructive comments can be made on something concrete and changes
> implemented instantly if needed, quickly if not.

I don't really think this is the best solution.
The conundrum is about how to resolve the two conflicting points of view 
on how the site is envisaged to be used.

Simply installing wordpress doesn't actually solve any of the underlying 
conflicts, it gives a common platform that both groups might agree on 
but both groups would prefer to have a site used in fairly different ways.
Making quick decisions on personal opinion can be easier, but ultimately 
harmful and unhelpful to the community.

> > Once discussion started again on the list Tim made an excellent case for
> > having an entirely static site, which I think we should still consider.
>
> I do not believe there is any case for a static site with more than
> two or three pages in preference over a WordPress based site, given
> the technical competence of the group, and unless your are on
> free/cheap hosting with no scripting or database.

I don't really think we should be looking at this on a technical basis.

In a similar way in which we were looking for the best logo for the 
group, we are looking for the best site for the group, regardless of 
anything else.

*IF* the best site for the group is a fairly simple set of html pages we 
should not instantly dismiss this based on the premise that we've bought 
a VPS and thus should make full use of it or that we have great 
technical skills inhouse which we should make use of.

But I do believe there is a case for a mainly static site.
By static, it must be noted that I am actually referring to the content 
not changing with any great frequency, not necessarily, whether or not 
it is hand coded or rendered by a scripted CMS.

I don't think it is actually beneficial for me to point out in this 
particular email where I believe Wordpress is unsuitable for what I'd 
like to see, because I don't think that our discussions about how the 
site would be used, should pivot around how the site is implemented.

There are many ways of implementing both ideas, neither *have* to be 
done in Wordpress.

I'm very pleased to have input and support from someone who is evidently 
very passionate about it (for those who don't know, Mike just 
resurrected Manchester Wordpress User Group) but I think for the time 
being discussions should probably be mainly be those directly involved 
with the group as young people,

Cheers,

Tim