one quick response, inline:
On 10/14/11 4:08 PM, felipe ribeiro wrote:
it seems to me we are at something of a crucial moment - we just won a
big battle against the city, which means our support has reached a
critical mass across sufficient portions of society. The big question
(which is now bigger) is "what's next"? It would seem that the question
of what we want our software to do is a reflection of what we want to
accomplish as a movement. What kinds of online interactions are we going
to enable? is the strategy/planning component to be relegated to working
groups, or will there be an online component to this as well? If so,
shouldn't this be a specific topic/location with input from all sides -
facilitation, internet, FLO, direct action, in short - ANY group that
wants to have a voice in what the next move is??
I don't think this is an archaic discussion, it dovetails
with/replicates the discussion(s) regarding what our next move is as a
movement - how to grow the consensus model, how to act in accordance
with principles of legitimated outcomes via transparent methods of
negotiation, and through this process, EVENTUALLY, how to get to an
analysis of what the problem is, and *possible* solutions. (all of this
is, of course, my own analysis of what the next move is, your view may
be different and just as valid/more informed than mine)
In short, building the software is a way of encoding the values and
objectives we have as a movement. If we accept that the first step is to
agree upon what these values and objectives are, then we can look at the
software implementation as the first "political" act. If so, then this
conversation needs to be brought to a wider audience. It isn't
appropriate for IRC, for instance. Most people have no idea what that is.
I think a clear statement of intention is a good move, something to the
effect of "we offer this application/CMS as a first draft, a rudimentary
way of chronicling the movement, in hopes of registering the
intention/wisdom/opinion of the whole group as much as possible, to then
implement a tool that we truly feel, as a whole, is a better vehicle of
aggregating our willpower, resources, and knowledge in a fashion that
enables our goal of self governance." At the end of the day, there are
three things you can do - resist the existing model, try to reform it
from within, using whatever mechanisms exist for this purpose, or take
the buckminster fuller approach, and build a better model, that makes
the existing one obsolete.
What is the best way to advance this view - that we need discussion,
ASAP, from a large number of people about what the ideal CMS should
enable (after this first iteration of MU WordPress)?
I have ideas on this, but this isn't the channel to express them. Where
are these discussions happening, outside of working group meetings that
may or may not happen in accordance with what is publicly posted at the
NYCGA website? Otherwise, can I create a parallel site? Would that be
seen as forking this discussion and/or adding to the chaotic nature of
the current moment, as opposed to being a constructive act?
i'd like to echo this question, as i'm having a *very* similar crisis of
conscience right now.
Bottom line - important moment, important topics, and if they are being
discussed already, this discussion should be VERY easy to find for
anyone from "outside?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Chaz Cheadle <email@example.com
I'll let it rest but,
My point is that we aren't asking the public to develop site. Our
job is to provide a site that works for them with the appropriate
technologies. If the technology is complicated, that is of no
concern to the users. I don't believe the literacy argument is valid
because on the front face, the website is just a site, what makes it
work is immaterial so long as it can do what it needs to. Voters
don't need to know how Diebold machines or punchcards work, they
just need to use it. Our mission is to use the best technology to
support our cause. I realize lots of people blog with WordPress, and
if that is all we want this site to do, then that is fine and it is
an appropriate tool.
We have to keep the dialogue open in here amongst the IWG about
whatever we are working on. We are a team after all... perhaps even
the A-Team, and that makes me BA Baracas!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Evan Wagner <firstname.lastname@example.org
We are building the permabank site (resource routing/sharing
platform) in Drupal, so we have the opportunity to let the
debate play-out in implementation. Should be interesting!
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:56 PM, "Dr.Ron Suarez"
<email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
For many people using Drupal would be like having a literacy
test before you can vote!
I know Drupal is more powerful, but that power comes with the
tradeoff in the ability to create flexibility for larger
numbers of people to control not just their own content, but
how they want to enter it and present it.
I was wondering how long it would take for the Drupal vs.
WordPress debate to rear its ugly head. We have created a
multisite installation and special applications could be
created in Drupal by those who want to use Drupal and reside
at a subdomain. We are using Multisite WordPress that will
enable our Groups within our BuddyPress social network to have
their own site at their own subdomain. Having this in
WordPress makes it much more accessible to the masses of
people who want to be able to exercise more control over their
own content and how it is presented.
Drupal developers are much harder to find and much more
expensive. Specialized projects might be very appropriate
targets for Drupal development. Please don't force less
technical people into a situation where only a much smaller
number of people can make changes. If you like Drupal, then
you should build something useful with it.
Around 24 Million people use WordPress to blog.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Ted Schulman
I agree that we have to create a migration plan from the
current wordpress site to a more dynamic cms. Internet and
Open Source workgroups are currently setting up the
hosting environment and toolset that will allow us to
define a development and migration roadmap. Our
methodology will include the 5D's:
Discovery - who, what, where, why, when - these are some
Define - what functionality is required
Design - how the audience interacts with the system
We will be a more detailed methodology section to the FLO
Open Source Workgroup webpage in the near future.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Chaz
I would like to propose a serious consideration of
Drupal for the
website. I know that WordPress has been used to start
the site. If we
expect this site to grow in size and functionality we
the increased needs for features and content types. In
WordPress is a very powerful blogging platform but I
think our needs
will outpace its capability in terms of required
content types and
features. Drupal, like WordPress is opensource with a
network but also has a very strong enterprise level
is used by extremely large and high-traffic websites.
Drupal's module system is more mature with a great
customization and security.
As I think our site is and should be more than a
we should consider a highly developed CMS system to
meet our future
needs. Since we still seem to be in an early
development stage of our
new website I strongly urge a discussion and a needs
assessment of the
website in terms of technology and future expansion.
Some of the needs addressed extremely well by Drupal*:
-Menu systems (programmable)
-Forms API (programmable API for creating and
complex forms (voting,surveys,creating custom
administrators, content data entry etc.)
-Taxonomy driven content processing (manage and
process content based
-Module support for other FLO technologies such as
-Security and Access Control (Core level security and
system for content and administration)
Internationalization (multilingual support for menus
and site content)
Calender/Events system (integrate date driven
list notifications into any content type)
-Solid integration with Varnish/Pressflow (site
caching for quicker
page delivery for high traffic sites)
-Views (custom content processing and display for any
display/customize content based on configurable
location, date, etc.)
-CCK (create any content types beyond blogs/posts such
rotating articles, document library, company profiles,
events, etc etc etc.)
-Multisite (ability to host multiple subdomains/sites
with shared or
separate user databases, partially or completely
for groups if desired)
Themes (global and user preference based site themes
Content publishing/unpublishing on any desired
schedule (repeated, one
Drupal, like WordPress relies on the addition of
modules or plugins
to add features to a site; niether one will serve our
needs right out
of the box. I have had a hard time finding equivalent
plugins for some
of these features in WordPress which is why I would
like to ask for an
I would be willing to begin and share development
lead on this if
we feel Drupal is more appropriate solution for this
architectural needs. Just like a WordPress version of
this site we
should have designers, content authors and developers
together. We should also keep the
architecture/management of any site
100% transparent so anyone looking for information on
posting process or the technology behind it.
* Disclaimer: I am a Drupal developer. I create and
modules for site administration and content publishing
for a large,
multisite Drupal installation- so I am much more
familiar with its
architecture than with WordPress'.
I would not like to start an argument, but rather open
a dialogue for
an evaluation of the movement's web technology needs.
Thanks for reading.
Dr Ron Suarez
President, Loud Feed (Ann Arbor + Brooklyn)
+1 415-935-1321 <tel:%2B1%20415-935-1321>
Music CMS Open Source version:
Social networking site we built for the American Association
of Independent Music: <http://bit.ly/cV7CIF>http://bit.ly/cV7CIF
Our partner Toolshed promotes artists from the Beastie Boys to
Sheryl Crow using Loud Feed: