Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello Michael,

Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930,
Michael Wheatland <> a écrit :

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
<> wrote:
"to implement the Silverstripe CMS on" does not seem to
mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather:
with the possible option of Drupal in the long term.

Sorry, I meant to write not

ah, okay. 

"a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your
enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them
to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans
to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early
misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position
(again) .  But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be
useful to you to take my words into account.

To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision
statement from the Steering Committee decision.

The conversation on the conference call:
"I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed
planning in the next month regarding additional services..."


There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality
sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider
Drupal as the long term solution.

I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their
opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution"
means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a
long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision
requesting the use of Drupal. 

The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows:
"the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter,
with plans to migrate to Drupal later on."

"plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the
definitive Drupal website"...

I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the

Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for
the long term. 

and the website team has had a large group of people (larger
than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom
might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time.
Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to
involve Native Language teams and other functional teams.

And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which
has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal
project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just
an option. 

I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not
just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement
as communicated back to the website mailing list.

Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive
statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option.

Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.