Hi Landon,

We are currently braindstorming a (possible) department listing page similar to This.

It would go a long way in showing who is in what department. I will when I have the time experiment with the modules installed on the XOOPS website on my test site to see if I can come up with a clear way for this list. Including experience criteria would be a good addition, thanks for the suggestion.

The volunteer form, as you read in the Liaison Team roadmap, I envision to be a channel to volunteer for any department within the XOOPS community that has the need. The basic form will be used to submit basic information and possibly followed by a more extensive request of experience depending on the needs of the department. I just would like to see it made easier to contribute and help the community.

Thank you jdseymour for your elaboration on the subject. I look forward to seeing how this will develop. I think there are quite some people around who really want to contribute, but don’t read all the threads indirectly informing the community what kind off help is needed.

The introduction of the volunteer form will most surely help in mobilizing more xoopsers to actively contribute.

Quote:
You certainly do and you certainly do not - respectively

I see what you mean and see the need for both the all-in "I want to help" application form and the specific "We need someone to do this" job ad.

Good ideas on how to accomplish this? (this goes for anyone reading this)

I most definitely have suggestions, unfortunately I’m off to go to my other job right now (yup.. internship + a job on the side) I’ll either reply tonight, CET , or saturday evening. I assume there are a lot more Xoopsers with suggestions though. I’m curious about those suggestions.

maybe an implementation of the 'help wanted' section on the dev site could be used here..

http://dev.xoops.org/modules/xfjobs/

if that could be modified to add all the current departments of xoops, then each dept could put their request in there when they require more team members etc, possibly some way of linking with the liaise questionairre for that particualr dept. when somebody wants to apply

or perhaps Job Listings

I'll give it a spin and see what I can find.

Job listings seems to be able to pull it off with a few modifications.

> yes people will always complain.. you can't please everybody.

Agreed.

> i don't advocate burying my head in the sand, i was just mentioning the fact that those modules are the wf-teams work.

So if a module is abandoned (lets be honest the wf-project is mostly dead at this point development wise) its still off limits? IMO thats a wasted resource. Why re-invent the wheel when a mostly working module is ready for the taking to be used as part of the new module packs?

> i have seen this argument before in threads where 1 developer took someone elses module, modified it a lot and released it, it caused an argument between them and lots of references to gnu etc.. i'm not going to elaborate on who said what and who did what etc because that's finished now..

Let them yell. Perhaps next time they will, using the wf-project as a example, do a better job releasing patches/updates. You need to break some eggs to make a omlette is my stance.

On a side note whos to say you have to keep the name the same, you could use wf-sections as the base for the new module and just rename it. I point to what phppp did with newbb2/CBB. This way anyone still claiming to be on the wf-projects team still retains 'their' module but the core team develops a fork as the new core.

> i don't think the wf-team would take too kindly to their modules being taken over by xoops, especially as they are still working on them,

Thats a very debatable point. I put the WF modules inching very closely to abandonware if not already there.

> i didn't mean to throw negativity to your reasons for pondering with mambo, just offered a response to them, 1 which was pretty valid tho.

Fair enough.

> the QA team is going to be doing exactly what you said anyway regarding modules, this was discussed many weeks ago on here and in public view, and they are addressing it gradually.

I am glad to hear this. I wish them well.

> but it can't be done overnight.. i was just trying to make you aware of the QA team existence etc, so you know that those *bad* points you mention are being addressed

Some of them at least ;) but I do agree its a start. Thank you for a well spoken reply.

I also want to thank everyone else who has put in productive input into this thread. I am glad to see such excellent posts.

> Going back to one of your points - "the default modules being crap" - don't forget that shortly no default modules will be packaged with Xoops, so the new user can download the latest news, forum, content, media etc module.

From my understanding they are going to have module packs tho.. so in effect their are still going to be core modules, correct?

> Taking over undeveloped modules? Well the repository reorganisation may not have been 100% popular - but it will mean that some modules are not lost.

Sorry, dont follow your point..?

> I don't agree with what all you said, but if I look at what you mean consisely - it boils down to "reorganisation and tidying will make XOOPS better". If thats what you mean, then give the people who are trying to do this time... we do have lives away from this system, but we are working on this!

I do not have a issue with the time (within limits) required, but my point was to raise issues that I felt needs to be addressed in the first place. I am glad to see at the very least staff are being assigned to wade though the modules and pull out the broken ones.

> 1) Taking over modules to make them better and release them with the core

> This, we will not do. We are currently 6 core developers, each with other projects of our own (full time jobs, module development, that kind of thing). Taking over other projects and make them "ours" is not the idea of taking the modules out of the core - on the contrary, we want to be clear of having to support modules and able to pick the best, we can find, so we can focus on making XOOPS as good as we can.

Perhaps I am not being clear, or I am misunderstanding you.

What I mean, for example, is remove the current news and article module. And replace it with a renamed news 1.3 and wf-sections and make those applets the base of the new default modules.

> I'm sure that when you find a module that you can make better, the developer(s) would love to work with you on doing that.

With people like phppp or hervet, indeed that system works. They are active and make a effort to reply to you.

But with a WF module and an exist in name only dev team, that does not work too well. I am STILL waiting for a secuirty fix or upgrade script for the last full verion of WF-sections thats over a yr old now.

> 2) WYSIWYG Editor
It's on the to-do list for 2.2, but there are unresolved issues like how to manage the editors (selecting which editor to use - per user? - should the toolbar options be manageable by the site admin? or the user? Or not at all?) and I have also a concern as to how the content is stored and displayed.

Thats fair, all I wanted was it be to worked on/looked at which you apparently are. So if thats the case this point I am content with.

Thank you for the reply.