Subject:
|
Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:58:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1278 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > > Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > > > - All submissions will be in LDraw DAT or MPD format.
> > >
> > > Makes good sense. And I would prefer that we insist
> > > that the submissitted files can be published on the
> > > LDraw.org site.
> >
> > I think this is an unreasonable restriction.
>
> I know.
>
> > I'd be interested in understanding why this is something
> > that should be insisted on.
>
> Because learning more about what we can do with the LDraw
> format (IMO) is one of the aims of the contest.
I looked here:
http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=142 and
here: http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=189
and I didn't see that as an explicitly stated goal. I may have missed it
somewhere else though.
> And if the
> files aren't published we don't learn much.
I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps slightly less than if they are. I think there are
lots of learning opportunities present. But again, is learning the goal of the
contest? I didn't think it was. I thought the main goal was to recognise nifty
models. There seem to be a lot of other vehicles available for learning.
> Making sure we are allowed to publish the DAT/MPD files also
> means that we can let people browse the models on their own
> and not just through a few preselected views.
While this is true, I'm not sure I see it as necessary to the primary aims of
the contest.
> > In the offline discussions prior to presenting this
> > proposal and elsewhere in the thread, there seem to be a
> > number of people who don't think this restriction is
> > reasonable or necessary.
>
> I know. I just happen not to be one of those people.
Didn't mean to imply you were, but I thought we had arrived at a consensus among
those participating in the discussion prior to Orion to going public. Of course,
you didn't participate in the discussion.
My impression was that the MoTM contest more often struggles with a dearth of
entries rather than a surfeit so putting additional barriers to entry in place
strikes me as imprudent.
I guess I'd like to avoid what could easily become an open source religious war
from interfering in the adoption of what seems like a simple and straightforward
improvement to the contest procedures. So unless there is some overriding
reason, other than personal preference, for requiring source, I don't think it's
reasonable or necessary. Further, insisting on it could prevent this change from
being adopted.
And that, in my view, would be a bad thing.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
