[Baypiggies] Meeting summaries and links
marilyn at deliberate.com
Mon Apr 17 20:58:11 CEST 2006
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Aahz wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006, Marilyn Davis wrote:
> > In our case, with multiple speakers, do I collect everyone's text
> > and put it on a web page? Or does each speaker put their info on a
> > web page and give me their url and I put links to those urls on a
> > web page and give that url to the group site? I guess the later is
> > better so that people can post their slides and keep control of their
> > info. That would be the Cascading Stanford Model? And it is the
> > object-oriented model since everyone keeps their own data, surely a
> > better experience for everyone and a better product.
> If you look at the history of BayPIGgies meetings, when we're doing a
> good job, the BayPIGgies page contains a reasonable summary that links
> to the presenters' longer pages. What changes do you think should be
> made to this and why?
I was trying to help facilitate Dennis' suggestion that we pattern the
I like it but I am not attached to it.
> >How are you imagining that the existing old stuff will be handled?
> >And the new old stuff as it develops?
> Consistent with the way it is now.
OK. I was just wondering if the links would be stable as they seem to
be at the ee380 site, or if the links would be moved to a list of old
talks. Again, I'm just trying to get the spec straight. It is no
real issue for me.
> >Maybe Donna will be handing this in the future? Is this what she is
> >volunteering for?
> I sense a culture clash here. The technological approach and goals
> implemented presently look markedly different than the kind of tools Donna
> is using. The existing web page meet our publication needs and exceed what
Oh. I'm too tool dumb to know that I was suggesting a culture clash.
> I would expect in terms of continuity and preserving past records. Our web
> site is not something where I want to put my personal energy. I am much
> more concerned about the logistic, process, and content of our meetings.
> For me, web site direction is up to those maintaining it now.
Maybe Wes was maintaining it? I thought, in the end, he fixed up the
page for JJ's talk on Thursday, and Aahz disclaimed the earlier work
on the page. I thought I remembered that Donna volunteered to make a
new look for us. So I thought we should be talking to her.
Again, I'm not pushing anything, just trying to clarify and build
> >I'm inserting Donna's talk. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> I think we need a single copy of the schedule of upcoming events. If you
> want to maintain the list, let's either transfer the list to you or come up
No no. I don't want to maintain the list. I just wanted to get Donna
on there so that she wouldn't feel left out.
> with some simple source control protocol between ourselves. Several of
> items for other meetings are not the latest copy I have.
Oh. I was responding Mark Ivey's post which contained your post.
Mark also said:
> Is there an iCalendar schedule for the group? I would find that very
> useful (and I suspect others would as well) because then I could
> subscribe to it and have the meetings show up on my calendar. Just a
so maybe we can consider using some tools to keep stuff straight.
I'm not a web person and really know nothing about all that magic.
> Your entry has one issue in this combination:
> Date June
> Location TBD
> The location for June is IronPort. Donna has indicated she can speak only
> at Google, not IronPort. The next open Google night is Sep. You show your
> own July location as TBD. You have raised in a separate thread why we
> simply do not have all our meetings at Google. Good question. Google is
> more convenient for me so I don't oppose a move. I would like to see
> discussion. In the absence of some sort of emergent consensus for change,
> I think the schedule is IronPort June, Aug, Oct, ... Google May, July,
> Sep, ... My inclination, until we have consensus is to show:
> Date Sep.
> Location Google
OK. Sounds right.
> The other thing I wonder about is
> Working Topic Title Plone
> It appears to me that Plone is a CMS built on Zope3. As such, there is a
> funneling effect where people must accept that they need a CMS and that
> Zope3 is the proper foundation. TurboGears looks like an interesting Web
> Development Platform. Could these be combined into a Web framework
> talk? Would this be better? I am unfamiliar with either (although I have
> done very basic work with Zope 2). I am an absolute newbie in all of these
> areas and my comments should be weighted as such.
I don't know enough to recommend anything but your suggestion sounds
even more interesting to me than the Plone-only talk. But I don't
know if it's practical.
More information about the Baypiggies