new.nodejs.org

[ijroth]

At the Node Advisory Board meeting on Monday the team discussed the transition of nodejs.org to a new website working group who would be responsible for its content. The website working group would be under the Node.js Foundation, but since this wg is already operational it makes sense to start with this group of people. @misterdjules and @robertkowalski who have been maintaining the current node.js website might also be interested in participating

I propose that we start building a new community-owned website which could go live when the foundation is formally announced. In the meantime we could host it at a staging domain (for example, at new.nodejs.org) for continual feedback and updates.

In advisory board meeting, Scott mentioned that @misterdjules would have access to be able to set this up for hosting in the short term before the domain is transferred to the foundation (the foundation is not yet formally setup.)

[robertkowalski]

Hi!

@geek is also maintaining it.

Haven't found anything at https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/tree/master/meetings - can you point me to the meeting notes? Thank you!

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:12 AM, ijroth notifications@github.com wrote:

At the Node Advisory Board meeting on Monday the team discussed the transition of nodejs.org to a new website working group who would be responsible for its content. The website working group would be under the Node.js Foundation, but since this wg is already operational it makes sense to start with this group of people. @misterdjules https://github.com/misterdjules and @robertkowalski https://github.com/robertkowalski who have been maintaining the current node.js website might also be interested in participating

I propose that we start building a new community-owned website which could go live when the foundation is formally announced. In the meantime we could host it at a staging domain (for example, at new.nodejs.org) for continual feedback and updates.

In advisory board meeting, Scott mentioned that @misterdjules https://github.com/misterdjules would have access to be able to set this up for hosting in the short term before the domain is transferred to the foundation (the foundation is not yet formally setup.)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/iojs/website/issues/317.

[mikeal]

We also might want to consider an _iteration_ on the current branding. I DID NOT SAY REBRAND!

Going through the io.js logo process where people submitted a million things and I tried to use them in difference contexts was quite informative. When we did the new io.js branding we were pretty specific about the sizes and shapes of assets (facebook, twitter, etc) that had to be made from that experience, many of which the current node.js logo doesn't fulfill very well.

The current logo is very recognizable and the whole hexagon thing was hugely successful in terms of community branding as you can tell by the tessellated hexagon stickers on laptops. We can't throw that away but a "freshening up" of the logo and other branding, maybe put in some less dark and depressing colors, would be kind of great and hopefully be a breath of fresh air.

[dotproto]

@mikeal, for clarity do you mean iterating the Node brand or the io.js brand? I've been a bit out of touch the past few weeks, but I can't imagine the Node Advisory Board being super excited about dropping Node.js' brand given it's history and existing mind share.

[mikeal]

The Node branding.

dropping Node.js' brand given it's history and existing mind share

That's why I'm not suggesting dropping the brand :)

[mikeal]

This is more like what I'm talking about.

[piscisaureus]

@robertkowalski The meeting notes aren't completely processed yet, but the "raw" notes as taken during the call are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p5dcF2HoiEP6G2Ce-5311wWGGWSW_joruZusdxz_Q6g

[therebelrobot]

Because we are shifting back to node, should we see about a new repo for the new foundation website? Or do we want to iterate off the build we have here (or off the node repo?)

[Fishrock123]

I would prefer to work off of io.js's website. We already have a reasonably working i18n system in place.

Also, while talks about this would be ok, I'm not sure I want to exert that much dev effort into it before the foundation becomes and thing and an actual merger happens.

[mikeal]

Agreed, it's a bit premature to start putting code down. But we can start the discussion about what this should look like. IMO a branch, rather than a full repo, might work better if we're going to be using the same tooling (which we probably should for the reasons @Fishrock123 already pointed out).

[misterdjules]

@ijroth I think @robertkowalski is actually in a better position to help you with hosting, unless he thinks otherwise.

[robertkowalski]

Hi, do we have a box where we can point our config (https://github.com/joyent/node-website/blob/master/conf/nginx.conf) to? Happy to help!

Btw I really love the ansible setup you have, we should use it for the new website, too! (or any other kind of infrastructure as code solution for reproducible results). :)

For the node website we noticed that a staging server is quite nice if you want to test things like nginx changes with real domains, I did some changes to our nginx config recently and it was a pain to test (e.g. if nvm and node-gyp still pull node/header files after a nginx redirect change)

[shammond2000]

Hi all. Taking from the discussion at the Node AB session, I would like to work with a few people to add a section to the nodejs site that provides more information about the Foundation and the work streams we are executing on to stand it up. @robertkowalski and @geek - are either of you able to help with this? I would also like to get some help from the io website WG. Any suggestions on who could help with this?

[Fishrock123]

Yeah, I'd also suggest just a page be added to the current node.js site for the time being.

I would also like to get some help from the io website WG.

Most of us (@iojs/website) just deal with the technical side of the io.js website.

[geek]

@shammond2000 if you can provide a PR for the content you want displayed we can definitely try and make it fit into the site.

[therebelrobot]

So has there been any real decisions on how the @iojs/website WG and the node.js website team (I'm assuming that's @geek, @ijroth, @misterdjules and @robertkowalski?) are going to be merged and how we're going to be working together? We would need to set up who is going to handle deployments and devops, build, i18n, content updating, testing, and we haven't really figured out if and when we're getting together to hash all that out...

I'm a little afraid that either the work we've done in the website for build or templating, or our involvement with the site moving forward, are getting phased out a little. Without a clear plan of how we're going to be merging, I feel like the project will just be taken over by the node.js team and the iojs team will be left out. I know that's not the intent, which is why I bring up the concern.

I know it was said that it's premature to start laying down code, but maybe we can get the branch started or something? With just this thread it doesn't seem like we're getting as much a chance to get involved and working on this.

Maybe this is my own anxiety with the reconciliation in general. I know company mergers (in my experience) have brought instability to the governance of project teams, and I want more than anything for that not to happen with the website team. I just want to be able to contribute as much as I can to the new site if/when it becomes available to.

[shammond2000]

@therebelrobot good points and questions and thanks for putting your anxiety out there. Most of the discussion so far has centered on technical governance and that seems to be going well. Regarding the web site, there is a marketing group composed of a representative from each of the companies that is sponsoring the foundation. I think most of their discussions have centered on launching the foundation. I will check with them to see what discussions they have had, if any, about the website.

The goal is to have the project and WGs driven by the community, not by any one company or team. If we are going to work together on the project we have to break down the barriers of distrust. I think both groups will discover that we have more in common than not. One way to do that is to just start working together on things. Would you like to get involved with the marketing group regarding the web site?

[Fishrock123]

Regarding the web site, there is a marketing group composed of a representative from each of the companies that is sponsoring the foundation.

Would you like to get involved with the marketing group regarding the web site?

That will be part of an evangelism group, not the website-technical one, I hope? (Some of us don't have time / expertise in the former..)

I'd be ok with joining in some sort of discussion on how to merge the two technically, but I suspect porting stuff from node's site to this type of system would probably be the easier and more sensible route.

[shammond2000]

ok. no evangelism skills required.

[shammond2000]

i just checked with our rep on the marketing WG. They haven't spent time yet discussing the website but plan to do so over the next week or so. Casey Bisson will start working on this and would welcome your involvement. He'll reach out to you.

[therebelrobot]

@shammond2000 Thanks for the reply. I would be interested in helping in any way I can, though like @Fishrock123 said, the website WG was more hands on with the build and technical aspects of the site (cross-browser/cross-device compatibility, internationalization streamlining, templating, things like that), and that would be more of what I personally would be more comfortable assisting with as well.

More generally, it might be a good idea in the long run to separate out the marketing from the website group, with the design of course being driven by the marketing/evangelism team, and the implementation of that design by the website team, since a lot of mindshare on the details of both of those generally aren't held by a single person or group. Definitely something to talk about with your rep in the WG. Let me know (and the rest of the @iojs/website team as well) what you guys are thinking on this and how we can best contribute :smiley:

[shammond2000]

@therebelrobot Good suggestion. Let's do it.

[shammond2000]

I started a discussion about what information about the Foundation should be communicated to the community. The thread is here: https://github.com/joyent/node-website/issues/106. Comments welcome.

[geek]

@therebelrobot I agree that we can start laying out the merged site content and basic layout in a branch. This is git, so not hard to move things around. Do you want to start a branch on the iojs/website or do you want me to create one under the node-website repo?

My initial preference is that we have the translation of all of the docs into various languages, like we already have on iojs. I also think we need to have more tutorials and a more pleasant onboarding experience for new visitors interested to learn more. I am partial, but I do like how content is organized on hapijs.com

[therebelrobot]

I can make a new branch here, that should be fine. As for the content, that may be a better task for either the evangelism WG or the i18n WGs.

@iojs/website, any objections to me making a trial branch for this?

[Fishrock123]

of all of the docs into various languages

Just note that docs != the regular website, at least in io.js case.

any objections to me making a trial branch for this?

Not really. What are we doing, just porting markdown? Or is this a trial redesign? I'd say leave the latter to the experts once we are merging.

[misterbisson]

@shammond2000 thanks for the intro.

There are two steps here, it seems: an initial description of the foundation inside the existing nodejs.org site that can stand during this transition period. Once the foundation is in a position to take it on, the next step is to transition the site and possible/probably redesign it.

I'm going to focus on the first step and pull together what I can find for it. I'll share a draft back here and at https://github.com/joyent/node-website/issues/106 when I have it.

[RnbWd]

I wrote my opinion on the topic here. new.nodejs.org is not iojs.org, they can coexist for similar purposes but I believe iojs.org should remain in some form.

[therebelrobot]

This is being discussed further on #350, where we're working on branching and merging plans.

[ijroth]

Note that the nodejs.org domain is now owned by the Linux Foundation. This new website can happen any time now.

[Fishrock123]

@ijroth ok, thanks for the heads up.

[fhemberger]

Closing this, we're already working on this over at nodejs/new.nodejs.org.