Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:18:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4285 times
|
| |
|
|
Firstly, thanks to Jacob for responding to my concerns (and those of others) and
explaining things a bit more.
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> 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.
OK, I am relieved to hear that LEGOfan.net would not simply accept any new code
without some sort of evaluation process.
Still, that evaluation is not really going to be done by the "community" at
large (that would be impractical), but rather by whatever small selection of
individuals are running LEGOfan.net at that time (the "oligarchy"). Maybe this
was obvious to most people, but I guess I needed the distinction between
"community owned and community run" and "community owned and run by an
oligarchy". I'm simply making this distinction here for clarity, not saying
that one or the other is better, and "oligarchy" is not meant to be construed as
a negative term.
> > 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.
This makes it sound like the decision of whether or not a new "feature" gets
implemented can end up being made by a single person (a subset of the oligarchy
running LEGOfan.net), based on their whim. On the face of it, this doesn't
sound like the best way for things to get added to LEGOfan.net or potentially
radically changed.
Under this way of working, one user could decide that LEGOfan.net should use ALL
CAPS throughout the site. That user writes the code for that new "feature" and
uploads it. Most members of the oligarchy ignore it as a silly idea, but all it
takes is one of them to "feel like implementing it" and suddenly LEGOfan.net is
in ALL CAPS!
The above is an exaggerated example, to be sure, it is not hard to imagine the
same process happening for an idea whose implementation would be equally
annoying to a great many users.
> > 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.
I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean a lack of programming ability =
a lack of voting power for LEGOfan users?
In response to several people's concerns, you have expressed the following:
> 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.
> In that it will be trivial to dethrone us if we don't do our job well enough.
> 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.
This does better explain things, but I must say that the whole idea of other
sites popping up to "compete" with LEGOfan.net by duplicating it and then adding
certain modification goes *completely against* the stated goal of being the *one
single hub* of the LEGO fan universe. With this model, it seems to invite a
scenario where everytime there is a significant diagreement about a new
"feature" of LEGOfan.net, a new competing site will be created.
You could potentially end up with:
LEGOfan.net - The 'single hub' for the online LEGO fan universe; with support of
the LEGO company.
Brickfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, expcept for feature A which
is untenabble; without support from the LEGO company.
Blockfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, with additional features B
and C; without support from the LEGO company.
PlasticFan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, expcept for features A, D,
E, and F which are untenabble; with additional features B and G; without support
from the LEGO company.
Etc, etc...
-Brendan Powell Smith
PS. Again, by expressing these concerns I am not trying to shoot down the idea
of LEGOfan.net, but hoping they will help you better define just what it is
you're trying to do, so the rest of us might become supporters of the idea, or
at least reject it for more informed reasons.
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
