Subject:
|
Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:19:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> Well. We may have forgotten to write it down, but I
> remember it as one of the ideas, when we originally started
> MOTM (and I wrote the first two versions of the software for
> MOTM/SOTM).
OK, I'll accept that and agree that it's a goal of the contest. Going forward
though, I think we're still suffering from not having formal organization in
place, in an ideal world this proposal would have passed through the steering
committee instead of going straight from the content list to LUGNET.
> > 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.
>
> It is kind of hard to arrive at consensus during holidays
> (unless you only want consensus among those who happen to be
> able to join the discussion :-).
I agree, and I don't think we wanted that. If you review the content list you'll
see I was asking that we not go to LUGNET till we had all our i's dotted but
Orion was eager to move forward on this.
> > 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.
>
> What »open source religious war«? Nobody has talked about
> open source.
Maybe I'm confused but isn't asking that the .ldr file be made public for a
model to be submitted essentially an open source issue? It strikes me as one,
you're requiring that the author of a work make his work available to all.
> > So unless there is some overriding reason, other than
> > personal preference, for requiring source, I don't think
> > it's reasonable or necessary.
>
> I consider both learning from the source and the ability for
> people to view the model from any angle they want to be
> reasonable and sufficient arguments for requiring source.
I guess we have a difference of opinion there, I can't see that learning is
degraded that much, and there are ways to view the model from any angle that
don't require the source to be open. (they are server intensive but technically
possible)
> > Further, insisting on it could prevent this change from
> > being adopted.
>
> I don't think so.
I'm not sure I follow. Will you acquiesce to this change without the model
source being required to be made open/public? Or do you think the views of the
majority of participants so far should be overlooked? Those are only the
scenarios in which insisting on this provision would not prevent the rules
change from being adopted, unless I'm missing one
I would not be in favor of this change WITH the source being required to be made
open/public, I'd rather stay at the status quo (1). I'm not the implementor of
the change of course, but without an formal governance process, who decides? I
see that as a problem that is insoluble without the LSC in place and we remain a
ways away from that point. Although I am encouraged by the drafts that have been
circulated I don't see us as being at consensus on them yet.
1 - the status quo being one in which a model by a great modeler wins perhaps at
least in part because it uses radiosity to give it more visual pizazz. That's
not trying to run Greg's work down, it rocks, and I think I would have voted for
it even if it was an MLCad screen shot, but in his remarks he acknowledges that
he used radiosity. That's what the current contest rules encourage, in my view,
and that's broken.
But I'd rather stay there in that yucky place than force modelers to give up
rights to their work in order to enter the contest. I would not go so far as to
characterise it as "petty" but I'm not sure that it's not excessively misguided
idealism.
++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
