Re: Building up a new *user* wiki!

[Amitai Schlair <schmonz%schmonz.com@localhost>]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Julian Djamil Fagir 
<gnrp%komkon2.de@localhost> wrote:

>  * mediawiki[...]
>  * ikiwiki[...]
>  * fossil[...]
>
> What do you think?

I don't understand why solving a human problem starts with listing
some software you like. But as I've said, perhaps our goals aren't
shared; maybe your goal here is to run some software you like.

>   with ikiwiki is only that I absolutely don't know it and cannot write
>   perl, and would thus rather take another wiki.

I don't understand why the software's implementation language matters
to you, unless you're offering to develop new features for it. I do
understand why never having used the software might be a blocker, but
I've offered to help you with that.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Julio Merino <jmmv%julipedia.org@localhost> 
wrote:

> Amitai has reiterated that getting wiki.netbsd.org ready for prime time
> wouldn't involve so much effort.  Why not *at least* investigate this idea
> instead of running away?

Well, the work to develop a controlled user-contribution feature for
ikiwiki is very different from the work to instantiate a separate wiki
that uses only existing features. Of course, the best-case scenario is
that we do the former, and quickly. But that requires someone with the
right skills and available time, and then they have to come up with
something that works better than my first spike at it. So I think it's
reasonable for someone with different skills to volunteer to run a
separate wiki instance. And I think it could actually be helpful -- if
it's being done for the right reasons, in the right way. As I said
earlier in this thread:

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Amitai Schlair <schmonz%schmonz.com@localhost> 
wrote:

> If the ultimate goal isn't user participation at wiki.n.o, then these
> concerns aren't terribly important, and the wiki can be anything it
> wants. Otherwise, a user-editable wiki should work just like the one
> we want them to eventually join.

Anyone is free to run anything anywhere, of course, and they can have
whatever goals they choose. But if the above isn't what's being
proposed here, then I don't think what's being proposed here is a good
idea for NetBSD.