[sf-lug] The sf-lug web site is now different ... better ...

[Michael Paoli]

Definitely a net improvement.

Thanks.

> From: jim <jim at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] SF-LUG website (& editing thereof) [was: Re:  
> Noisebridge SF-LUG (Noisebridge Linux discussion supported by  
> SF-LUG, ...)]
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:21:25 +0000

> The sf-lug web site is now different, possibly better:
> http://www.sf-lug.org/
>
> On 07/16/2016 09:35 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>>
>>> Fixing some (mis-)quoting and rearranging a bit:
>>>
>>> Uhm, well, no shortage of rather to quite out-of-date information on
>>> https://www.sf-lug.org/
>>>
>>> Let's see ...
>>> at least it shows correct date for meeting ... but I think also that's
>>> still PHP, and I believe Jim quite expressed a preference to get away
>>> from using PHP - certainly at least for publicly accessible web pages
>>> ... and instead have a "static" web page ... that would be suitably
>>> updated via a cron(8) driven crontab(1) job.
>> This is my strong preference, as you know.
>>
>> PHP is a large security hole that happens to have a small interpreted
>> language interpreter attached to it.
>>
>>> What else have we ...
>>> "meetings are the" ... hmmm, always?, no mention of exceptions, or
>>> qualifying it with "generally"?
>>> "Meetings are usually in San Francisco at" ...
>>> Uhm, has SF-LUG *ever* met outside of San Francisco?
>>> If SF-LUG has *never* met outside of San Francisco, then perhaps rather
>>> use:
>>> "Meetings are in San Francisco usually at" ...
>>> "gnu" - shouldn't it be uppercase in that context?
>>> ... "Solaris"?  Uhm, really?  How often/frequently/recently has Solaris
>>> been discussed at an SF-LUG meeting? ... and like in a serious, rather
>>> than mocking or mostly/entirely historical context?
>>> "Policies: Anything goes" ...
>>> "Job Postings: current policy is"
>>> Uhm, ... shouldn't the Policies bit end with "Except:", just before the
>>> "Job Postings:" portion?  Otherwise they logically conflict, ... and
>>> less polite folk may go with the first, in violation of the
>>> second/subsequent and conflicting.
>>> "Projects include:" Uhm, yeah, I'm guestimating that listing needs a
>>> fair bit of updating.
>> [...]
>>
>> You know, if you were just to copyedit the public text to polish it up
>> and fix various infelicities of wording, I doubt anyone would mind.