Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org, lugnet.general
|
Followup-To:
|
lugnet.org
|
Date:
|
Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:21:20 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4520 times
|
| |
|
|
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.general, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Dan Boger wrote:
> > However, development on LUGNET can only be done
> > by invitation. And to date, there have been very few such invitations.
> > That is one of the main things we hope LEGOFan can improve on. By
> > making the code that runs the site accessible for anyone to download,
> > modify, and submit updates, we allow a much wider pool of developers to
> > work on the site.
> >
> > This means, that if someone has a great idea for a new way to, say, track
> > community events, they can just write a module, upload it, and everyone
> > benefits.
>
> What about when someone has a terrible or very misguided idea, writes a
> module, uploads it, and everyone suffers?
It will not happen. We will still have to have a competent group of system
administrators checking if new modules are up to par, before they can go into
the central LEGOFan.net site.
But if a developer creates a really cool module, and the LEGOFan.net system
administrators are some jerks that will not put his module into the central
site, he has all the code and data needed to set up a competing and (due to his
new module) much cooler site.
Just like with Linux, it being Open Source doesn't mean that you can force the
original developer to use your work, but you still have access to all the work
of the original developer, so if your work really _is_ better, you will either
out-compete the original developer or force him to incorporate your work in his
version.
> An obvious danger of a community owned site is that only a
> certain percentage of that community's ideas are going to
> be worth implementing. Who then decides what does and
> does not get implemented?
Those who do the work. If somebody feels like implementing a feature, it will
be implemented. If nobody feels like implementing a feature, it will not be
implemented. (in addition to this there will probably be a security audit by
the site system administrator before an implementation will be activated on the
central site)
> I can't imagine there would be a giant
> vote for every possible change to LEGOfan.net...
Everybody votes all the time - with their abilities as programmers.
> It seems to me (though I admit little knowledge of 'open'
> projects) that there will still have to be a certain set
> of people who make these decisions for the rest of the
> users.
Yes. But due to the licenses covering the software and data it is always easy
for a better (measured in user satisfaction) development team to dethrone the
current one. Open Source projects are generally managed as dictatorships - with
one important difference - you can always run away _with_ all the treasures of
the old dictator.
> Currently with LUGNET, there is a very small number of
> people with control to make such decisions. How exactly
> would LEGOfan be different?
In that it will be trivial to dethrone us if we don't do our job well enough.
> The original post lists 9 names of people behind the
> project. Is this not simply an oligarchy to replace a
> monarchy?
Yes. But with different rules for the game. Rules that (as I have explained
above) mean that it is an unusual kind of oligarchy. Having all the software
and data on the site available for any of its users to copy and use to run a
competing site means that if somebody has just a single good implementation that
we reject, then he will be able to set a complete LEGOFan.net clone _plus_ his
improvement up overnight. And if it really is an improvement people will swich
over. Since we don't keep our software and data locked down there isn't the
swiching barrier of having to manage without (or reenteren) all the previously
entered data.
> Perhaps someone can better explain how LEGOfan could
> actually function without putting control into the
> hands of only a select few...
The daily operation of the site _will_ be in the hands of a select few. What
makes the difference is how easy it is to swap out one select few for a better
select few.
> I don't want to come off as overly negative or cynical
> about LEGOfan.net, but like others who have replied to
> this thread, I am a huge fan of LUGNET, and very much
> see it as *the hub* of the AFOL community.
So do I. But I can't do everything I want to with Lugnet. With an open system
it will be easier for me to experiment and try to improve my on-line LEGO
experience. (that sounds a bit too much like marketing buzzwords, sorry)
> This is the *one place* where AFOLs congregate to
> discuss and show their work.
No. But it is probably the most important and popular one.
> So I can't say I see much of a need for a *new hub*
> for the AFOL community, and unless LUGNET's forums
> are incorporated directly into LEGOfan, I have some
> serious doubts that LEGOfan will come up with as
> elegant a forum.
Since the Lugnet software is Closed Source, you shouldn't expect it to show up
anywhere else. But yes, it is certainly an enormous challenge to create a
better discussion group system than Lugnet.
> I must admit a bias in all this, which is that
> personally, I am only interested in being part of
> an AFOL community where the A is for adults. If
> part of the impetus behind LEGOfan.net is to join
> together the adult and children fans of LEGO into
> one community,
It is to a certain extent one of our goals.
> I should also mention, that I too would worry
> about the "corporate sponsorship = corporate
> mouthpiece" issue. Despite Jake's reassurances
> and even despite the best intentions of all
> involved, I think this sort of thing just happens.
If LEGOFan.net ends up relying completely on LEGO for funding, I can understand
your worry, but that is not our intent. We have already spent a bit of time
thinking about alternative ways of funding the operation of the site. And if
the corporate sponsorship damages LEGOFan.net, anybody interested (and with
better ideas for funding) can grab the good parts of LEGOFan.net and launch a
clone of LEGOFan.net which is independent of corporate sponsorship.
> I admire LUGNET's independence.
Has Lugnet never received a sponsorship from LEGO?
> Finally, I also share the concern that LEGOfan.net,
> though created with the best intentions, would
> become *yet another* LEGO fan site to visit instead
> of being *the* LEGO fan site to visit.
That risk exists.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bison (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Dyr/Bison/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
