[consulting] preparing clients for Drupal 5 obsolesence

[Matt Chapman]

Victor Kane wrote:
> They want a website application that will last several years and have 
> every right to receive that. 
I agree. That's one of the reasons I am taking this stance: Since Acquia 
has committed to at least three years of support for Drupal 6, they can 
depend on that. No one has made any such promise for Drupal 5. (Eric's 
patches are great, but a given with the caveat that their only done when 
the security issue impacts his clients. My clients might have different 
needs.)

> Only if they ask for new functionality and the cost of implementing it 
> is cheaper if an upgrade is involved should the client be expected to 
> change to the new shiny Drupal
This is where I disagree, in regards to making the decision based on 
what is cheaper (right now).

What I am advocating is that consultants make the Drupal 6 upgrade 
required before implementing new features on a Drupal 5 site, even if 
that is MORE expensive (right now) than implementing said features in 
Drupal 5.

Like others in this thread, I view websites as living organisms which I 
expect to change over time as the client's business needs change. (I'm 
not interested in building brochure sites.) A little extra cost now to 
upgrade will pay great dividends in the increased efficiency for new 
development, given the tools available in D6. (Themer module, I love you.)

Also, assuming the site is going to be upgraded eventually, it is always 
cheaper to upgrade sooner rather than later. Every new feature I 
implement is a feature that will need to be upgraded sometime, unless I 
insist on upgrading before beginning development of the new feature.

 From a TCO perspective, my policy is the more cost effective one, I 
believe. If a client really wants to shoot themselves by building a 
functionality on top of flexinode, they're going to have to borrow 
someone else's gun. I won't do it.

This is obvious. The only question is, at what point do you cross the 
threshold where upgrading is a requirement? (Victor, are you still 
writing modules for Drupal 4.6 sites? Certainly it would be cheaper to 
do that for many kinds of modules, than to upgrade to Drupal 6 first?) 
I'm simply arguing that the time is now.

Finally, in response to those concerned that a public campaign would 
hurt Drupal's perception among potential clients, I would like to argue 
the opposite. I think unscrupulous and/or undereducated developers are 
doing far more damage to Drupal's reputation already. (I've spoken to 
some of their former clients.) I also think that such developers would 
be the only ones opposed to this campaign. Hence, a public information 
site and logos/badges would force such developers into the open. If we 
can educate the public about why they need to plan for upgrades, then 
the dissidents will be forced to explain why they disagree with the 
campaign, and how they intend to protect their clients from the hazards 
of not upgrading, and what the client will need to pay for such protection.

By the way, look up the word 'unstable' in webster's. There is no way in 
which 'The Drop is Always Moving' is compatible with stability. Drupal 
IS unstable, and that is exactly why it is so innovative and powerful. 
The web is not stable, we don't know where it's going. But whatever 
happens with OpenSocial, OpenID, RDF, RIA plugins, and SaaS, I know that 
Drupal's flexibility will allow it to be there first. Drupal's 
'instability' is one of it's selling points, as far as I'm concerned, 
and clients who realize that a meaningful web presence requires 
continuing adaptation understand this.


Best,

Matt