From Fedora Project Wiki
(Added note about Ellington) |
(Removing Ellington suggestion. The LAMP + Django is a nice thing, but Fedora doesn't use closed source software.) |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
* Wordpress - http://www.wordpress.org/ | * Wordpress - http://www.wordpress.org/ | ||
* SilverStripe - http://www.silverstripe.org/ | * SilverStripe - http://www.silverstripe.org/ | ||
== Vetted list of CMS solutions to try == | == Vetted list of CMS solutions to try == |
Revision as of 19:47, 13 January 2009
Scope requirements for a potential usage of a CMS underneath specific content delivery sites; owner quaid
Background
For information on the history and reasoning for this effort, read these entries:
- http://iquaid.org/2008/08/13/why-and-where-fedora-needs-a-cms-solution/
- http://iquaid.org/2008/08/19/fedora-cms-focus-and-scope/
Target (sub-)domains and paths
- http://fedoraproject.org*, non-wiki content:
- https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora
- https://fedoraproject.org/en/join-fedora
- https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-help
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal (to move out of the wiki)
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing (to move out of the wiki)
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines* (to move just the guideline pages out of the wiki)
- http://docs.fedoraproject.org*
Time frame/schedule
- Scope need -- mid Sep.
- List possible solutions -- 19 Dec
- Vet solutions list -- 21 Dec
- Run a test replacement for docs.fp.o -- 29 Dec?
- Hackfest to bring up docs.fp.o -- 07 Jan
- Finish -- 09 Jan
- Explore www. replacement -- 28 Jan?
Tasks
- Hammer out scope list
- Vet solutions against scope requirements
- Install publictest instance
- Create a Fedora theme/skin for the app
- Roll to docs.fp.org
- Iterate bug and functionality fixes through F10 release
Solution requirements
Must have
- Good security record
- Proactive, security minded developer community that is ...
- Highly responsive, especially to security issues
- Flexible enough auth system to attach to FAS
- RSS
- L10n that doesn't break the translator workflow
- Output for Transifex (PO/POT)
- Content workflow (write <=> edit => publish)
- Internal version control with rollback capability
- Content expiration (automatic)
- Multiple roles, e.g. writer, team lead, editor, publisher, managing editor
- Categorize/tag content for easy base organization
- Search that works
- Integrate with FAS
- Be a CMS as a core function, not an add-on
- Handle making certain pages or content areas static/non-database driven, such as for scaling during times of heavy resource demand
- Must not lock us in. Data should be portable to another CMS.
Should have
- OpenID
- Good WYSIWYG editor
- Easy to organize content by taxonomy, structured and ad hoc
- Support for draft->review->$foo->publish workflows
- Workflow to ship the content for l10n only at certain stages
- Workflow go back to a certain stage if a mistake/error is found in the source-language content by the translator
- Translators have a 'review' step in the workflow for translated content before it is published, so that they can see translations in context
- Modern technology with a vibrant community and likelihood of being popular beyond the next twelve months
- Good federation tools to make it easy to find disparate content through one UI
- One set of things it is great at, not be all things for all people
Other good qualities
- Be a modular design (v. monolithic)
- Have an active and large community
- Have support for DocBook
Raw list of CMS solutions that meet enough requirements
- APLAWS - https://fedorahosted.org/aplaws/ (ex Red Hat CCM)
- Drupal - http://drupal.org/
- Joomla - http://joomla.org/
- Midgard - http://www.midgard-project.org/
- Plone - http://plone.org/
- Wordpress - http://www.wordpress.org/
- SilverStripe - http://www.silverstripe.org/