Minutes of Nov 16, 2007 meeting
Topic of CS vs. Dreamweaver/Contribute was brought up and Matt clarified that it may have been simplifying things to think about this process as a choice between these two products, but that in reality, many other options exist
- Response: This may be true, but there was a good deal of effort that went into selecting CS in the first place (3 years ago) and we're not in a position to initiate another search for a CMS at this time.
- This opinion was not shared by everyone and by the end of the meeting it was suggested that perhaps we should look into other CMS solutions in-depth since CS was chosen by a larger group for different reasons
- possibility that it's not the best option for this project
Dec 5th meeting
Interview with Dave DeMello re. ILR use of Commonspot - pros and cons.
...
There was no mention of platforms again in minutes again until May 22 meeting when decision had already been made.
Technical Subcommitte
Technical Evaluation by the Design Subgroup
CUL Vision Report - Web Site Development Recommendations
Platforms finally evaluated
- CommonSpot 5
- Contribute/Dreamweaver
- Drupal
Contribute/Dreamweaver was eliminated quickly
- produces a static site that is hard to maintain
- no CUL system integration or content re-use
Commonspot vs. Drupal
- Open source provides options for flexibility, debugging, testing that proprietary code and database definitions does not.
- DLIT has very little ColdFusion expertise, lots of php experience.
- Commonspot 5 required upgrading servers to ColdFusion 7 and upgrading all 16 sites from previous version.
- Commonspot costs $5500 per year, upgrade to CF7 would be around $2500. It also requires a dedicated server.
- Drupal would be implemented on existing servers without interfering with their current uses.
Conclusions of the report