Subject:
|
Community run (was Re: LEGOFan.net...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:25:25 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
3262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, down the road,
> when someone else changes the corporate mind for them? Or somebody
> wants to show their Mega Bloks creation? Or make a disparaging
> comparison of MB (or some other competitor) to Lego? I'm not saying
> that anyone (currently) wants this to happen, or that it will happen,
> but it is a concern. What needs to be addressed is what kind of
> support Lego might give, what strings are attached to that support,
> and what will be the consequences if that suport is withdrawn, and
> discussed in a calm and reasonable fashion by all - I am merely
> voicing concern, not hurling accusations.
We already discussed most of this with Jake, and agreed we would have to
have no strings attached. The LEGO company would be a welcome visitor
and participant in the site, but they will NOT run it, or dictate how
the site should be run. I believe that at least with the current team,
we would rather severe all connections with LEGO before allowing that to
change. The goal of this project is to create a resource for the
community.
> Perhaps it is just me, but I'm not really getting a clear picture
> (I've only waded through half this thread so far) of what LEGOFan is
> offering in the way of something new and unique. BrickLink offers a
> way for buyers and sellers to acquire/get-rid-of Lego, Brickshelf
> offers a picture hosting service, Lugnet offers a ton of centralized
> forums, Classic-Castle offers a theme-specific tailored site. A hub?
> Sounds like just a link service. News site? Lugnet already serves as
> that. Age interest? Okay, that may work, though I don't understand
> what LEGOFan will do that specifically addresses that.
There are a few main issues that we're trying to address here. One, all
of these sites you mention are run by individuals, and could disappear
without a trace. There is no site that is run and owned by the
community, that is not at the mercy of any particular person. LEGOFan is
designed to be just that. Once there's an organization with a charter, a
governing body, etc, the controls are not in the hands of any particular
individual.
The other issue is that all of the current community sites are closed
sourced. This means if the current developers lose interest in the
project, they have to choose to hand it off to others, who then need to
jump into the middle of a lot of unfamiliar, and often cryptic code.
With an open source project, anyone can contribute content (don't even
have to be a developer, or an AFOL!), and if the current maintainers
lose interest, others that are already familiar with the code can just
get the additional access (from the org) to become the new maintainers.
Also, since all new code is reviewed before it's entered into the
system, the quality of the code would also improve, making for faster,
cleaner, and better code.
The last issue that comes to mind right now, is that there are a lot of
features that would be great to have in the community, and they are not
currently offered by ANY site. Many were mentioned at some point on one
of the discussion groups, but no one ever implemented them, even where
there was active support in the community. With an Open Source project,
if someone has an idea, he doesn't need to convince "The Developer" to
implement it, instead, he just needs to convince someone to implement it
for him (if he can't implement it himself). Accepting code that will
add new functionality to the site is a whole lot easier than writing
it.
> I'm not sure whether that is a hobby concern or a corporate concern.
> All you have to do is point them to existing sites, but they aren't on
> the corporate leash. I understand Lego's concerns about recommending
> sites and then having them confused with actual Lego endeavors, the
> muddying of the company trademark, etc.
I agree that this might be LEGO's incentive to support LEGOFan, but it's
not the reason we're building LEGOFan. It is a case where LEGO's
interest happens to align with the community's.
Anyway, this is a somewhat long reply, help it helps!
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Community run (was Re: LEGOFan.net...)
|
| (...) Not really, not for me at least. It seems like there are a few different versions of what this site is going to be running around out there - and it seems that each version is based on what the persom being told wants to hear. I am sorry, (...) (20 years ago, 16-Feb-04, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Community run (was Re: LEGOFan.net...)
|
| (...) This is not completely true. Classic Castle is run by a group of administrators (each with an equal vote) not by one individual. Yes, we have a webmaster. If he left, another admin could step into that position. Our funding is by one (...) (20 years ago, 16-Feb-04, to lugnet.general) !
|
Message is in Reply To:
208 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
