Hi Reed,

> Of all the things the firebird project desperately needs, I'd put
> a new web site near (or below) the bottom of the list.

Hmm, interesting. I put it near the top, along with the organization
question, just browse a little back to find the discussion about it.

> I believe Pavel has done an excellent job so far, and if
> there are problems with the firebird.sourceforge.net site, the the
> proper course would be to bring them to his attention (in a
> reasonable and constructive manner, of course).

One question that has been subject to discussion is, what type of
site we're all talking about. Pavel has done a site for developers
and indeed that's what a site like the current one could be used for
and so I dont want to contest the quality of Pavels job.

But on the other hand, if the site should be not for developers but
for the rest of the world, then I think this site is not good for
that purpose. And in my opinion that's the type of site Firebird
needs.

I wrote a message about that earlier and to be short, here's the link:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IBDI/message/2554

> It has been suggested that the firebird 'development' site
> and 'user' site should be different, but I do not agree with this
> at all.

Ok, to avoid a long statement I'd say, simply look at what other OSS
projects do, e.g. Apache.org. If you find on that site more about the
development than a 2 lines "how to get involved" statement, let me
know.

The beauty of the web is it allows you to make

> hierarchies. The choice between 'user' an 'developer should
> only be a single click. Beyond that, firebird is essentially
> a developer organization.

Firebird is more than a Developer organization, because the product
will have that name and therefore the entire community behind this
name will be identified by Firebird.

To know my more detailed opinion on this question, you might want to
read the Firebird HowTo I wrote:

http://www.soell.ch/firebird/howto.htm

> Right now, there is very little
> user content that belongs to firebird. Duplicating content
> that is already available at IBID, IBPhoenix etc. only creates
> more maintenance hassles. That's why we have hyperlinks.

No. At least minimum documentation on the Firebird website is
necessary in the interest of a coherent presentation of the
community. It's important for the Firebird brand.

> Now if someone wanted to develop more firebird end-user content,
> or a comprehensive index of available information, THAT would be a
> valuable contribution.

Indeed.

> If on the other hand, the firebird developers DO
> want to have a new site, and then it MUST come with a web master
> who is willing to be deeply involved with it for the long term,
> and preferably has a deep involvement with all aspects of the
> firebird project.

In my opinion (if you read the preceding messages you know it), the
webmaster task for this site should be split up, because I think the
sensible parts of the site should be directly maintained by Firebird
project leaders. On the other hand, for some other site maintenance
tasks, I don't see why "deep involvement" is necessary.

> A person who is great with web stuff but knows
> little about firebird, (both historically and technically) is
> not suited for the job.

> It is all well and good to design a new
> site, but the real job is being up at 2:00 am trying to figure out
> why a user with LYNX 1.0 on BBC Acorn can't view the Changelog file,
> while at the same time harassing the hosting provider because
> they misconfigured their DNS again.

That's of course a real job. But project organization is another and
for the moment I have the impression there isn't enough organization
inside Firebird.

>
> The above are, of course, strictly my opinion.
>

Sure, no need to tell me...

> Regards,
> reed

Markus