Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:46:30 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4265 times
|
| |
|
|
Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
> In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> 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").
In practice yes (although the current oligarchy is not in
complete agreement about all details of this :-). It could
for example be a self-supplementing group or a group
appointed through some kind of democratic process.
> 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.
Since it is not something that is fully clear in the current
oligarchy, it is fine that you raise the question. And
while I tend to support a proper oligarchy for running the
technical side of things, I can see the benefits of putting
a democratic process on top of it.
> > > 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.
I think we talk a bit past each other here. I primarily
thought of "implemented" in the limited sense of writing
some code. It appears that you on the other hand primarily
thinks of "implemented" in the sense of putting some written
code into action on the server.
> 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.
Does it sound better, if I say that I imagine the decision
system for putting code into action consists of two or three
steps: Submission of code to LEGOFan.net. Review of the
code by the technical administrators (security, stability
etc.). And possibly also a decision by a non-technical
governing body if the feature the code implements is wanted.
> 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!
It is a bit hard - from a technical point of view - to give
people the necessary permissions to upgrade the system,
without also permitting them to mess the system up. I have
been a part of the technical oligarchy running SSLUG (the L
is for Linux, not LEGO) for many years. We have this
theoretical ability, but except for a few practical jokes,
it hasn't been misused.
> 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.
Right. Therefore it is probably good with a formal user
evaluation of new features before they are added to the
official site (I'm not sure I thought that 20 lines ago :-).
> I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean a lack of
> programming ability = a lack of voting power for LEGOfan
> users?
No. But since LEGOFan.net will not have resources to pay
programmers, only those who know how to write code are in a
position to decide which code gets written for LEGOFan.net.
Everybody should of course have a say in the succeeding
steps, but I doubt that we will ever be in a position, where
a popular vote among the LEGOFan.net users will have any
formal influence on which code gets written for LEGOFan.net.
> 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.
Yes. We don't _intend_ it to happen. But we want to make
sure it happens if the leadership of LEGOFan.net doesn't do
the job well enough. If it can't happen, then we may end up
with lock-in to a sub-optimal site instead of switching to a
better site.
> 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.
Yes. But assuming that there is _one_ best design to make
all LEGO fans happy, everybody will be using that one site.
And even if that is not the case, I _believe_ that there
will be a tendency for everybody to use the same site (or
network of sites), to get whatever synergy effects there are
to gain from working together.
Still, you're right. We are not making the task easy for
ourselves.
> 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...
Yes.
But why should the _users_ of the sites distribute
themselves evenly among them? Unless they actually have
different need, which can't be resolved by one single site?
And why shouldn't the _operators_ of the sites do their best
to share data with the other sites? Basically making the
different sites different interfaces to the same data?
I am not worried - even though it may be that I should be.
> 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.
Thanks.
And also: Thanks for teaching me a new word (untenable). It
is also good to learn new things.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Experimental parallel cable-stayed bridge:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Broer/Skr%E5stagsbro-parallel/
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
