Subject: CMS: Take 3: Editors and Trackers
From: Ernest Prabhakar <ernest.prabhakar@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:41:27 -0800

Hi Chris,

On Dec 4, 2007, at 9:34 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> Actually I would go further than that.  Even if we decide to use a  
> Wiki, we should be looking at it as a CMS.  This means we know how  
> the content is managed, reviewed, etc. and what we want the system  
> to accomplish.  Yes, I think a CMS would be better, but content  
> management revolves around people, not software :-)

I agree with you that the key issues are social, rather than  
technical. However -- maybe this is my bias -- I'm not a big fan of  
CMS for open projects.  To my mind, at least, CMS involves having a  
fairly rigorous process where somebody's job is to act as gatekeeper  
for *everything*.

The (ultimate) point of a wiki is to allow free editing, with "post  
hoc" (is that the right word?) editorial control, to quickly revert  
bad edits.  A CMS (if I undertstand your usage) is about "prior"  
approval required _before_ things are published, which feels too  
heavyweight.

Then again, the real question (for me) is what the people who need to  
*implement* the process are willing to live with/signup for.    
Hopefully we'll get a read on that in the next couple weeks...

-- Ernie P.