Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>> If you port the exiting wiki over, you lose independence, no?
>
> Not really - I meant move the wiki to another completely independent
> server.
Well, there would be no place to announce wiki outages..
(I'm all for moving the wiki to a dedicated machine, don't get me wrong,
but that's a different thing)
>> Also, I think a wiki is a major overkill. All we need is a static webpage
>> that the infrastructure folks can edit, no?
>> Sure, that can be implemented by a wiki, but it just seems way way more
>> complicated than needed.
>
> A wiki is nice because:
>
> * It's dirt simple to edit
Debatable :-P, but yeah, for somethign like this, it's very simple.
> * It's easy to add and remove write permission to people
Yes.
> * There's an automatic history of all changes
Check.
> * It allows for quick organic growth. If we want to break the "Site Status"
> page into "Website status" and "Mailing lists status", it's east to do so.
I'd consider that an anti-feature for a site like this, really :-P
> * It has email and rss alerts built in.
Yes.
> * It's easier for people to find.
*Huh*?
How does the software used determine how easy it is to find a URL?
> I'd love to see all project-related information like this in one place, and
> a wiki seems like the best way to do so. No reason to make yet another
> resource to maintain and keep track of.
If we want something to track when things don't work, this shouldn't be
in the same system as the things it's supposed to track. Or even on the
same server. Or even on the same network.
//Magnus