2. Multiple editors.
For maintainability reasons, multiple editors must be supported in a
convenient way. At least the council members plus one or more
delegated web master(s) should have edit access.
2a. I would like to suggest that various sections would be edited
by different groups. Thus the implementations table would be
updated by a developer lead/coordinator, not by the council.
2b. Perhaps the news section would be updated by the developers
themselves, so they can announce when a new beta or release
is done, even though it may not be added to the table of
'stable implementations' right away.
2c. Perhaps we should create a site map as the requirement.
2d. Also, I would like to see the editors and webmaster elected
every N months (say 12 or 18 months).
2e. Webmaster mandate. The webmaster would do no content editing
himself/herself, but would manage the access rights,
regularly check for broken links, keep backups and monitor
the mirrors, perhaps do spelling fixes, and relay
complaints/suggestions about content to the appropriate
editors. The webmaster could be seen as the electoral
officer. He should be unpolitical, and hopefully uninvolved
or just marginally interested in SPF. I'd have no problem
with the webmaster owning the domain name. The webmaster
would also report bandwidth usage to the SPF community, and
recommend how much money should be raised to keep the site
operational for the future. The webmaster should have some
experience with webmastering, so he/she can plan and
implement the caching/compression and other such features in
order to reduce bandwidth costs.
3. Informative and concise.
The site must have a clear structure, and all SPF-related information
must be directly accessible from it. (See below for a discussion of
the contents.)
4. Current.
The site must be kept current. Having multiple editors is a good
basis for that.
5. Cheap (including bandwidth).
The site must be affordable for the project, so donations of hosting
and bandwidth are probably required.
I would make Reliable 1st, Unexpensive 2nd, and remove "cheap"
6. Independent.
The site must not depend heavily on the goodwill of individual
persons. That is, regular backups must be made and the site's domain
must be owned by the project or a person trusted by the community
(perhaps Meng?).
See my 2e. Also I think from an independence point of view, the
subdomain approach is more sensible, so the administrator of the
domain cannot hijack the domain. Assuming of course, that
multiple people have admin access to the subdomain, and the
important decisions about the domain/subdomain require more than
1 permission.
NO - I disagree entirely. Meng has nailed his colours to the MS mast and
should be specifically excluded from being in sole control of *anything* to
do with SPF. I have offered many domains, and I have offered to move them
as needed. We only need Meng to point spf.pobox.com at the new website.
Meng has done good work, but I think no one person can be
expected to remain unbiased forever. We're all corruptible.
7. Mirrors - the site should be mirrored across the world.
Greetings,
Radu.
PS. thanks for the compliment, Julian, it honestly is a pleasure
to contribute along with a bunch a brilliant minds like the
SPF community proves to be.