Subject:
|
Re: Community run (was Re: LEGOFan.net...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:51:48 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
3206 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > 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.
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
individual too. But that could be replaced if it ever had to be. At CC we are
planning to add more admins over time (one in the next few months) and replace
admins that leave. People can judge for themselves whether or not this is run
by the castle community. We listen to our members. Our goal is to "meet all of
your LEGO Castle needs." CC does need more long term planning (which is in the
works) but we are not a site at the whim of one individual. We were formed
partially to react against that very thing.
> 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.
Again, I think this depends on the site. CC html is very easy to learn in order
to write articles. Very basic skills are needed.
> 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.
I like the code idea, however I do not think that existing sites should have to
rewrite what they have in order to conform.
> 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.
What are these features? I would like to know. Again at CC, we make new
sections and have articles that cater specifically to what our members want.
They asked for contests, we give them contests :) People ask for a Gaming chat
room, we make one. Those are just a few of many examples. Instead of having
tons of small sites, maybe existing website admins should work harder to meet
the needs of their constituents.
Ben E.
Classic Castle Sets Admin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Community run (was Re: LEGOFan.net...)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 15-Feb-04, to lugnet.general) !!
|
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
|
|
|
|
