publishing group suggestion

[Eric "Sparks" Christensen]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 14:17, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
> 11:12 < quaid> ok, here's a thought ...
> 11:12 < quaid> long tradition is that 'docs' gave full commit access
>   to content; I see people still do
>               that with f'hosted repos
> 11:12 < quaid> (mostly)
> 11:13 < quaid> we had publishing separate because it was different,
>   separate, required training to not
>               break, etc.
> 11:13 < quaid> but if we're going to be publishing websites with
>   publican as the cms (basically)
> 11:13 < quaid> why not just use 'docs' group as who can publish?
>
> What I was also saying is that we have this:
>
> CMS for docs.fp.o:
> * Publican handles publishing and building of content for the web.
> * FAS handles authentication.
> * Beacon with DocBook extensions could be the wysiwyg editor.
>
> 'docs' group membership could be sufficient for publishing.  Why add
> another group when we have one well populated with all the people we
> want able to publish immediately?
>
> This lowers the barriers a lot for using Publican, but it doesn't give
> us a CMS that invites the 10x participation that we get through the
> wiki-like interfaces.  Having an easy web authentication layer with a
> nice WYSIWYG editor (and a publish button) is a very important goal.

Want to fold in the individual guide repos (fhosted.o) as well?

--Eric