Subject:
|
Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:13:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1893 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> This thread has grown so much since Friday it's hard to know exactly where
> to interject.... so I just picked a spot. I'll have more to say later after
> reading the thread again but wanted to throw a few comments out.
I think you picked a great spot to come in at.
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Wayne Gramlich writes:
>
> > There are gazillions of file formats out there and most of them
> > have had to undergo some amount format evolution. Format evolution
> > is a healthy and common situation.
>
> YES! Exactly. And one could argue that for historical reasons (which are
> what they are, and are good and valid ones) it's way over due in this case.
Yep: format evolution = good.
> > A common first step towards evolving a file format is to introduce
> > a version number into the specification.
>
> I think this is a great first step if it can be agreed to and made to work.
>
> Here are my general thoughts...
>
> LDraw needs a standards body. Not to dictate or prevent but to guide and
> help grow. That much seems clear to me at this point and I suspect most
> others agree. In my view that standards body ought to have representatives
> on it from all key stakeholder "factions"... the tool authors, the tool
> users, the parts authors, the parts users, and representation from the
> community as a whole as well. (Yes, tool users and parts users are
> overlapping but they are not equivalent, in my view)
Good idea.
I'd also like to add that such a standards body should be relatively few in
number. Not to be exclusionary, but to maintain focus. The number 7 sticks
out well in my head -- it's an odd number, and it's not too many people that
there's a lot of noise.
The SB needs a charismatic, motivated, and committed leader to keep things
on task and keep directing a vision for the future of the format.
The SB needs to be limited in scope to LDraw file format standards, and
responsible only for that and publishing the spec document.
> We've seen two public volunteers to be on the standards committee (Orion and
> Kevin), and I'd like to add my name to that list. I'd be bringing the
> viewpoint of the tool user and parts user with a smattering of parts author,
> to the table, and dare I say it, perhaps a bit of the feel for the larger
> community wide issues that I feel are vital to take into account as well...
I think you, Orion, and Kevin are ideal people for the standards body. If
Travis is up for it, I suggest him as well, and most definitely Steve Bliss.
If I think of others, I'll recommend them, or talk to them about it first.
> Discussion on LUGNET is good and proper and very useful, especially for
> highlighting issues and brainstorming, but sometimes you need to have a
> committee go off and do things, whatever they might be, that the community
> seems to have come to consensus on, and then report back with results or
> findings and seek approval. Else you can go round in circles. A committee of
> the whole rarely gets things done unless it's lucky.
Yup. I know this is sometimes a difficult one for this community to stomach,
but I also think we're coming around. I'm all for having a separate, clearly
defined standards body that can conduct it's business independent of LUGNET.
I also like the idea of encouraging open discussion, so the SB has something
to draw from. But, they should be the decision making group.
> That standards body ought to be part of a larger organization in my view.
> Again, not to dictate or prevent but to help LDraw as a whole progress.
Absolutely.
> I don't know if a standards body is the place to start or if the overall
> organization is, I'm not sure. You can argue either way.
I think it's best started with the SB. That will encourage the formation of
the overall organization. I've got a lot of (yet unorganized) thoughts on
the overall org, but I'll try to get a few out where appropriate.
> There has been some attempts already at the overall org and some progress
> was made but it's not there yet. The problem with a standards body that has
> no org behind it is in how it can gain traction.
I think the SB can exist in and of itself for the time being until an org is
formed. Everyone here in this community acts in good faith and desires to
see this stuff more clearly defined. I think it will be respected. (see the
switch from .DAT to .LDR for model file extensions, which was done in a much
more disorganized way, yet was respected).
I snipped the rest of the message, and will reply in a separate post soon. I
wanted to 1) keep this post from being HUUGE, and 2) separate the two topics
a tad.
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
| This thread has grown so much since Friday it's hard to know exactly where to interject.... so I just picked a spot. I'll have more to say later after reading the thread again but wanted to throw a few comments out. (...) YES! Exactly. And one could (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
154 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
|
|
|
|
