Re: The web site

Brian T Rice wrote:
> Okay, my first reaction to all of this is that it's horribly old and
> convoluted and just plain needs a rework from start to finish. I consider
> both Fare and Tril to be culpable for the convolution, so I really don't
> want to hear from them about this.

I think they just brainstormed a lot and wrote this down and didn't care 
for better looks (or find the time and priority). Anyway they put a lot 
of content there for everyone, which is great, even though sometimes 
hard to get.

> I also don't abide by any of the advice to not change the web site until
> all the code is layed down. As far as I can tell, this web site needs to
> contain the _plan_ for the code. If Fare really wants a job based about
> TUNES, the absence of a solid plan with concrete elaboration of any kind
> detracts from the goal being reached. Furthermore, it will mean more to be
> a "member" of the project if the published material can be reliably spoken
> of without saying that it's "that dead pie-in-the-sky project".
> 
> Am I alone on this stance?
> 

No, I agree. Better looks are always better. They cheer you up, they 
make looking at the content more comfortable.
And even if attracting more people isn't that important, marketing does 
count I think.

Ulrich (just another one of those read-only guys on the list)