<div dir="ltr">The following is proposed on the wiki in regard to the process of making changes to the website;<br><br>1. while there may be an upside in terms of exposure, one
downside of having 'the first cut' announced on this public list is
that the list is archived and publicly available, therefore search
engines may 'grab content' that we decide shouldn't be made public<br><br>Is our only option to discuss changes via the private list - or is this really an issue? I suggest we use an alternate URL for review - I would like to host a copy of the site on my host to allow me to make changes directly to the site which then allows TH to clearly see what I mean by a proposed change rather than trying to communicate changes exclusively in text - i.e. I'd like to see this change <point to sample URL> - does anybody have objections? - this may also be useful for OCS integration.<br>
<br>2. If the Organizing Committee doesn't review the content first,
before it is available publicly, there may be the risk of wrong or
mixed messages<br><br>Agreed we need to have a review process but essentially can this be done as it currently is - i.e. on the list with a deadline of noon sydney time on xx date (with time/date link...) for comments from the OC?<br>
<br>3. is a 'two step review' (Organizing Committee, then this public list) too much 'management'<br><br>Yes (IMO)<br><br>4. is the process any different for an update to the content of an existing page vs a new page
<br><br>I prefer a simple process <br><br>a) submit proposed change to the list AND as a proposed todo task on the wiki (<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2009_Website_Feedback#Website_todo_list">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2009_Website_Feedback#Website_todo_list</a>)<br>
b) Simon keeps eye on the list and wiki and coordinates these with TH - if there is something thats needs OC agreement via a meeting we postpone the change to our regular meeting (<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2009/2008-September/000348.html">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2009/2008-September/000348.html</a>)<br>
c) change is made by TH<br>d) re-deploy onto OSGeo box<br><br>Cameron there are also some suggested policies on the wiki i.e. compliancy/testing etc is it possible to make a call on what we are going to follow so we can provide a clear set of criteria to TH?<br>
<br>Any other suggestions<br><br>Simon<br></div>