| Daemon_Lotos for Coder Admin Helper? |
| Yes, all aboard! |
|
100% |
[ 8 ] |
| No, sorry the train doesn't stop in this town. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 8 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Joined: April 29, 2002
Posts: 3195
Submissions: 93
Location: Albany, New York
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:14 pm |
Link to Post:  |
|
Hey guys, I think this is all very necessary discussion, and we need to hear it, but PLEASE, lets try to back off the emotional content a bit! Whatever our past differences, lets not inject those differences into a current topic, if possible.
That said, I propose we take a step back and look at things from a proverbial "1000 ft view".
Firstly, there doesn't technically need to be a vote to approve anything less than a site redesign, so most changes are at the coder's discretion, subject to the review of the board and membership.
Secondly, despite the fact that some of this change *will* require a site redesign (like the header), the BOD and community have all signed on long since, so I suspect a BOD vote would be uninformative. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with a re-approval, if that would make folks feel better. It has been a while, after all.
Third, if we're going to do this, I think it would be best to vote for each point separately, because I suspect that if there IS disagreement, it will only be on 1 or 2 out of 12 points, and we may as well pick the low hanging fruit first.
Just as an aside, some of the stuff on the list may no longer be necessary or applicable, as I've been making improvements here and there as I had time over the years, and may have ameliorated (or worsened?) some of the complaints. For example, does the new links section still require the proposed change? I'm not sure...
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
— George Bernard Shaw
___________________________________
Maille Code V1.0 T5.7 R5.1 Fhd MCu Wc Cd G2.03/.56 I9.75/3.25 Pn Dacdjs S97 CCi |
|
|
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 1491
Submissions: 0
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:46 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
Ugh, really Cynake, I'm not trying to argue with you or pick a fight. It would be nice if you would stop posting volumes upon volumes of picking.
While the content policy does not say "thou shalt not curse on the boards", the controls are still there, and we do have children as young as 11 that come here. In real life I curse like a sailor, but here I think it's important that we conduct ourselves the way we expect the membership to conduct themselves. In fairness, why should an admin be able to do it when we ask others to refrain? My statement wasn't meant as "revenge", just a reminder. That's enough of that.
Please stop twisting everything I say into the most literal translation you can manage. As far as the plan to "wiki-fy" the weaves and articles, we can all talk about that later as there are obviously other things that will be handled first. In fact I think it does warrant another discussion in the near future; re-reading the link you posted as the most relevant link to recent discussion, I still don't see a resolution or an approval.
Because a lot of these changes have been on the list for several years, I don't think I'm out of line when I say that I think it would be a good idea to briefly re-visit them before we implement them. Some won't meet our needs anymore, and some have already been taken care of. Why is it such a big deal to go through them again to make sure they're done right?
I'm sorry if you felt I was being emotional Blaise; I'm not. Just matter of fact and to the point. The internet does nothing to convey vocal tone or inflection, I can assure you and everyone else that I am not in the least bit upset, angry, or letting past differences interfere here. I am worried though that if changes are made without the exact details being hammered out that they'll be made based on someone's interpretation of what is meant based on what they want. A lot of the stuff is incidental; my main concern is still this whole wiki business. To my mind and based on everything I've re-read and the past discussions I was a part of, I don't feel that was resolved. Can anyone blame me for being a little leery on that point? |
|
|
Joined: April 29, 2002
Posts: 3195
Submissions: 93
Location: Albany, New York
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:11 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
Dierdre, I wasn't singling you out in this, and did not mean to accuse. I thought I detected an escalating tension, and I was only trying to metaphorically yell "Look, a bird!"
If I was mistaken, then I apologize, and no harm done.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
— George Bernard Shaw
___________________________________
Maille Code V1.0 T5.7 R5.1 Fhd MCu Wc Cd G2.03/.56 I9.75/3.25 Pn Dacdjs S97 CCi |
|
|
Cynake
 [ Ancient Forge ]
Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:49 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Deirdre wrote: | | Please stop twisting everything I say into the most literal translation you can manage. |
I'm befuddled. What did I twist in the slightest, let alone "into the most literal translation I could manage"? I'm taking it as you're saying it, and as I'm pretty sure you're meaning it. I thought you were clear.
You don't want to ever have content edited, no? Not ever. You don't even want content edited if the person who wrote it has said "I would like this to be edited if anyone has anything to add, modify, or clarify." You only want information re-arranged. Am I wrong?
I mean, I get that you do not like the decision, but you are completely wrong that it was not what was voted on. Static articles being poor were exactly the reason we started thinking about that, and exactly the reason we came to the solution we did. It was exactly what was voted on.
Collaborative Content = Editable and revisable by many people
By definition.
The argument that it wasn't what we voted on, is dead. You keep bringing it up, and I keep demonstrating, and quoting, how it's concluded, but that I have no interest in chaining ourselves to the past if it doesn't make sense, and if it's important enough for you to revisit, then go ahead.
You said that editable content would lead to incorrect and misleading information so "no way will I support a move that allows people to edit other peoples material, even if people opt in." Did, I.. misunderstand you in that you meant you in no way want anyone to be able edit anyone else's material even if that material is donated with the express purpose of being edited?
You said time after time I argue until other people give up, and then go and act on it as if it was approved. What does that mean, if not what I took it to mean, and asking you to name a few (or even one) occurrence? Were you not calling my judgment, reasoning, and ethics into question based on my track record, as justification for why you think you think it's dangerous to trust me and why you should be consulted?
When you said you that changes, no matter how trivial, you think is necessary to know about before it happens... did you not mean that you wanted me to bring up, and discuss, every minor change before including it in the design? And further, that my judgment on what should be brought in for discussion and what should not, was so poor that it could not be relied upon? Am I putting words in your mouth, or, isn't that what you meant? When I said you don't understand the amount of work that entails, I didn't mean to imply that you meant that every time I changed a file, or shuffled some text that you should be consulted. I'm not strawmanning your argument. I meant, y'know, changes. And with that clarified, I still think it's absurd to suggest, and I still think to suggest it that you have no grasp of the amount of work that entails.
I'm all ears, and quite serious. I do not want to be twisting anyone's words. Not on a personal level, and certainly not on a professional level. Could you point out where I did this, and help me understand what you meant instead?
| Quote: | | In fact I think it does warrant another discussion in the near future; re-reading the link you posted as the most relevant link to recent discussion, I still don't see a resolution or an approval. |
Unanimous approval.
"Drax - I'll throw my stone in for a 'proceed' vote.
Aderamelach - I continue to support the proposed list of changes.
Blaise - I, too, bow before public opinion...
Tesserex - I also extend my BOD voice approval.
Sakredchao - i give a go ahead. i'm for most things proposed, and either i'll be around or won't to put in my .02"
I'll say again: "Many other admins took part in the discussion, and there were zero votes against it or anyone who used language earlier indicating they didn't like it. "
Kim was the only one that was someone on the fence on some ideas, though he never said which.
| Quote: | | Because a lot of these changes have been on the list for several years, I don't think I'm out of line when I say that I think it would be a good idea to briefly re-visit them before we implement them. |
Sure, brief would be great. It will not be brief. The first time took us months, and, that was when almost everyone agreed on direction from the start, all we did was tweak each other's feedback. Just about everyone was exhausted from the process.
Has anyone read all the threads I've linked? That's only 1/2 to 2/3 of the discussion that's out there, I left out a bunch of threads. Plus all the private collaboration we did. If not, why should we re-hash the same reasoning over again? It's already there. If any of you are reluctant to sit down and familiarize yourselves with what was already decided and why, I think it follows that you will just as easily burn out starting new discussions of the same thing. The sheer magnitude of going through all that reasoning and what if this, what if that, what if this but not that but this other thing but maybe this third thing along with it.. is intimidating.
Or, like I said, have some faith. I haven't just read all those discussions, I was a part of them, as they developed. Something you could read in an hour, was something I (and others) spend weeks considering at the time. I have, in my head, a pretty good picture of what people were most interested in seeing done. A bunch of it I'll have to bring up to see what people want to do, to show samples, which is what I said I'll be doing.
| Quote: | | A lot of the stuff is incidental; my main concern is still this whole wiki business. To my mind and based on everything I've re-read and the past discussions I was a part of, I don't feel that was resolved. Can anyone blame me for being a little leery on that point? |
I asked, in just about every post in the version of this thread last year, for you or anyone else to mention your specific fears about wikis, and all I got back was "I don't know, I just want to see it done before I decide". That is irresolvable. I will not ask someone to put weeks of their time into designing and building something, just so at the end someone can say "Ehn.. actually, don't like it. Let's do something else." *ESPECIALLY* when, as I said last year, I'm pretty sure the things that you don't like about are things I can tell you right now *will* be the case. So, no need to waste time building it. You already know the final result is unacceptable.
Things like.. you don't like a wiki structure. You do not want content to be edited. That's not going to change by a try-and-see, and, damned if I'm going to ask anyone else to put in huge amounts of their time, let alone my time, on something that would get rejected right now.
| Legba wrote: | | You misunderstand me. I meant that it would be nice to be able to tell people what's happening if they ask. |
Oh, gotcha.
Well, first, just familiarize yourself with some of the changes. For your area specifically.. lemme dig something up..
Okay, well, aside from the other threads I've mentioned, you could show them this page, it will be somewhat close to what's getting done. That was Tess's interim solution. Passed by a 49-0 vote. It was in debate, a few years ago, whether it would be easy to graft smaller changes onto the existing site and see some changes sooner, or, rebuild the site the way we wanted it from scratch, with wiki'd pages. Since we didn't have anyone rebuilding the site, Tess's interim solution was the bandaid solution, but, even that never got implemented. So, weaves will look pretty close to that, only with a hopefully less ugly layout, more detail, more pictures. And a few other tweaks I've been thinking about.
| Quote: | | OH this sets off major alarm bells! This will put people off submitting their weaves. |
I know you've thought differently in the past, but this is a not a change of policy. This is the same policy. No one owns a weave. They simply do not. A weave is neither patentable nor copyrighted, not because we choose for it not to be, but because it cannot be.
What a member owns, is their graphics, and their text. Not the mathematical arrangement of toruses (torii?).
This is how, for example, Dave Austin's or Phong's website can mention and display pages about weaves they did not invent. They do not use anyone else's images, and they do not use anyone else's text. If 3rd parties are allowed to do this, surely we are allowed to do it ourselves.
There are two issues I think here. 1 - Are changes "legal" in the soft sense of the word, and 2 - Are changes ethical.
The first is conclusively yes. There is no arrangement being violated. The second, is trickier, but, I think yes, and so did everyone who voted years ago. It was also Tess's plan for the weaves as well.
As to whether we'll lose a lot of info, maybe. We may have a lot of selfish users who are going to pout and say "I am pulling my content if anyone gets to write anything about a weave I submitted." On the other hand, we'll gain, massively, from collaborative content. The gains, I expect, will be comparable to like when MAIL was founded. Massively net positive. Another interesting point, is the selfish users, we can do without.
If you look at many of the reasons people don't use MAIL anymore, or don't contribute to MAIL and contribute other places instead, it's because they have something they'd like to add, but MAIL does not allow for it. Great information, great contribution, that we can't support.
I went through most of the reasoning behind this in all those old threads. There's a reason that library and archiving sites have started wikifying content in the last few years, and if you look at their example, it's really quite stunning all the gains that are made. It's peer-review and micro-contribution taken to the max.
| Blaise wrote: | | Third, if we're going to do this, I think it would be best to vote for each point separately, because I suspect that if there IS disagreement, it will only be on 1 or 2 out of 12 points, and we may as well pick the low hanging fruit first. |
*sighs*
What do you think would be the best way of doing this? Just a quick approval vote on the list items (which I'll rewrite, as current as I can make it, unless someone else wants to do this)? Or, should we let this, or some other thread open up for debate first and then poll them individually? Or, should we do a quick reference check to see which ones pass, ignore those, and then some debate on the ones that fail, and then another round of voting for those?
Is the latter option fair? To ignore the ones that pass? Or do the dissidents there deserve a chance to make their case too?
I have several fears of this process:
1 - By experience, most people can't even be bothered to read, let alone engage in the debate. (Which is understandable, everyone here is a volunteer). But this won't stop them from making an uninformed decision of what's best.
2 - Everyone burns out and gets frustrated. Everyone. Then no one feels like working on anything. Shortly after I burned out last year, discussion died, and barely a peep was said about anything for an entire year until DL stepped up.
3 - This takes a godawful amount of time and effort to do. Things will slow to a crawl.
4 - It won't stop people from disagreeing with the decision later anyway, and arguing about it then too. If so much as one person doesn't agree, it's considered 'unresolved'.
Not that the status quo is getting us anywhere either, but, arg. Looks like no matter which way we go about this it'll get stagnated once again.
*shrug*. I'll defer to you on this. Just tell me what to do and I'll get started on it. Votes, writeups, discussion threads, whatever. I wanna put this into the ground and start getting some work done. |
|
|
Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:40 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Cynake wrote: |
Okay, well, aside from the other threads I've mentioned, you could show them this page |
That link doesn't work.
As for weave submissions being edited by others, it's not that I don't understand your argument for it, it's that I don't agree with it. I still think it is a bad move and Kim expressed the same.
Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu |
|
|
Cynake
[ Ancient Forge ]
Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:10 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Legba3 wrote: | | That link doesn't work. |
... Just checked again, it does for me. It has some funky formatting it in, maybe it's confusing your browser.
Lemme dig up an earlier version on a different site..
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/cschwar4/www/weavepage.htm <-- Does that work for you?
| Quote: | | As for weave submissions being edited by others, it's not that I don't understand your argument for it, it's that I don't agree with it. I still think it is a bad move and Kim expressed the same. |
*nod*
What's the bad part? What kinds of things do you think should not be changed? Why do you think it will not improve the usefulness of MAIL? Why do you think that this will be upsetting to the submitters? |
|
|
Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:25 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
Yep that link works.
What I disagree to is making people's submissions (including weaves) editable by other people. I can see that in many ways this would be favorable to MAIL as a whole but I believe that many (most) members will not like it. A lot of people's weaves mean something to them and if their pictures and text are changed in their submissions I think this will be very annoying. I believe people will pull their work off of MAIL, this will be detrimental to MAIL as a whole.
Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu |
|
|
Cynake
[ Ancient Forge ]
Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:22 pm || Last edited by Cynake on Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Link to Post: |
|
| Legba3 wrote: | | But I believe that many (most) members will not like it. A lot of people's weaves mean something to them and if their pictures and text are changed in their submissions I think this will be very annoying. I believe people will pull their work off of MAIL, this will be detrimental to MAIL as a whole. |
Last year, we came up with a couple possible solutions, and, a couple ways this might not even make sense.
1 - People aren't going to run rampant deleting things. This takes effort. Things will be edited to *be improved*. This would make the information about weave they invented better, and I would think, make them more proud that people are using it. I see no reason someone would take a picture, upload it, and replace the original picture (or at least, replace displaying it), on whim. But weaves with little description, or a grainy picture, or a picture that doesn't show off the weave, yes.
2 - We could, if this is a huge deal, always display the original image and text, on the page. That little part would not be editable, or something.
3 - We could, if the picture is replaced, post a link saying "Original picture by inventor here: ". Text is so brief, we could just frame it with "Original submission text by inventor: "
4 - Suppose we don't ever replace "the" weaves submission, as is. Say we invent a "Interactive Weaves" section on MAIL, where, we display all the new content. All static components are still there, just as they are now, but the other section may or may not use their pictures and text. I would expect, in short order, that no one would actually care about the old weaves library, (old style, it would still have new weaves) and would only use the new Interactive Weaves area.. but.. oh well. No one's upset. This is exactly what's happening anyways, as people are not using MAIL for weaves, they're going to Dave's or Phong's site which has superior information in superior presentation.
Or, other ideas. How about that? |
|
|
Joined: February 15, 2002
Posts: 877
Submissions: 45
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:25 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
Yeesh, these mega-posts are always hard to catch up on, and I swear they always happen while I'm on travel!
For the record, the quoting of everybody voting to proceed is on the following list of items:
| Quote: |
Nope. Current projects are:
---
1. Finish the new header.
2. Make front page more newbie friendly.
3. Re-organize articles section.
4. Change weave section to link to weave pages instead of just a picture.
5. Give people the option to donate content to M.A.I.L.
6. Re-design the gallery.
7. Add a "projects section".
8. Add a "Good, Bad, and the Ugly" forum.
9. Encourage monetary donations a "dollar club".
10. Change the member ranking system.
11. Remove/combine little used forums on the M.A.I.L board.
12. Re-organize the links according to content.
|
That's from the 2005 post (http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=4573&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45)
I think that list still stands as a good list of things to do. I notice that the list doesn't explicitly mention 'wiki,' although I suppose the argument is that some of the ways of implementing vague terms such as "re-organize" could entail such a method.
The problem with the 2007 post (http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=9417&start=15) is where it ends -- it doesn't. It just died off with most people disagreeing on a full-open wiki format, which is where everybody appears to be still. Actually, where we ended up was a request to play around with a wiki format to see how exactly it would work. I think that might allay a lot of worries.
Back to the original question about the coder -- it's great news. However, I can't vote in the affirmative until this body comes to some agreement on what exactly the coder might be doing.
Just as an afterthought -- like I mentioned that I probably reject 80% of submitted articles, I actually do edit most for content. For the most part, this is easy, because they're tutorials. There have been a few rare cases where I have had to reject something because of bad or dangerous information. In some cases, however, such as history articles and theoretical articles, I have allowed them through, and then posted for others to take a look, deferring to the expertise of others.[/quote]
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.--Bertrand Russell
Maille Code V2.0 T6.4 R5.4 E=o.o Fj6.2 MAl.a W$m C$b G0.5-2.6 I1.6-9.5 N20.26 Pn Dacjs Xa25g13w5 S00 CCu |
|
|
Cynake
[ Ancient Forge ]
Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:36 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Drax wrote: | | The problem with the 2007 post (http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=9417&start=15) is where it ends -- it doesn't. It just died off with most people disagreeing on a full-open wiki format, which is where everybody appears to be still. Actually, where we ended up was a request to play around with a wiki format to see how exactly it would work. I think that might allay a lot of worries. |
From a technical standpoint, as in, will it work, will it be functional, will it be better than what we have now.. no problem. From a "Try it out and see *how* it works"? No problem. Easy, was what I said my plan was from the start and Daemon Lotos has already assured me that this is the obvious way of doing things. Throw it up, see what people have to say about it. Make some tweaks.
I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem with "I want to see it first before I decide" as a thinly veiled "I don't want collaborative content, and want to reserve the ability to say I never agreed to this, later." Which is where almost all the actual disagreement came from. I'm not going to ask someone to redesign the site and build in the ability to wikify pages if people already have it dead-set in their minds now that we should not do that. |
|
|
Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294
|
|
|
| Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:33 am |
Link to Post: |
|
I like the look of the page layout in the link you posted Cynake. I see no point in repeating my worries with submissions being editable by others, I've explained that enough. I'm not saying lets take a look and then I'll decide, I've already decided that I don't like it. I may be the only one and that's fine, I don't expect policy to follow what I want but I'm entitled to express my opinion here.
As for your comment earlier about us not needing selfish members, well, I believe if they were selfish they wouldn't have submitted their work in first place. And weather you like it or not to some people their work does hold an emotional element for them and they will not be happy seeing it changed.
I don't see why we can't have both a wiki type section to the site which people can opt into for their submissions and the submissions as they are so people can opt out of their submissions being editable???
Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu |
|
|
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 1491
Submissions: 0
|
|
|
| Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:14 pm || Last edited by Former_Gallery_Admin on Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:40 pm; edited 2 times in total |
Link to Post: |
|
| Cynake wrote: |
You don't want to ever have content edited, no? Not ever. You don't even want content edited if the person who wrote it has said "I would like this to be edited if anyone has anything to add, modify, or clarify." You only want information re-arranged. Am I wrong? |
Yes, you're wrong. I think I was very clear, both now and in previous discussions. I do not want any Tom, Dick, Harry or Jane to be able to join M.A.I.L. and then edit articles, weaves and tutorials to their hearts content. Period. There needs to be some kind of control, some kind of an approval process for edits. I edit gallery descriptions frequently when they come in for spelling, grammer and syntax errors. But never never never do I change the information provided in a submission without the submitters express consent. If someone says "hey, add to this as you see fit, or delete as you see fit" then sure, I guess that's fine. I just don't see people opting to do that. I sure as heck wouldn't.
| Cynake wrote: |
I mean, I get that you do not like the decision, but you are completely wrong that it was not what was voted on. Static articles being poor were exactly the reason we started thinking about that, and exactly the reason we came to the solution we did. It was exactly what was voted on. |
I don't think I am, and so far you're the only person telling me that I am, so I'm still of the mind that I'm correct here.
| Cynake wrote: |
Collaborative Content = Editable and revisable by many people
By definition. |
What definition are you using? Yours, or is there some universal definition out there I've not read? The American Heritage Dictionary defines collaborative as "to work together, esp. in a joint intelectual effort. To cooperate" By definition, I don't get how that means to edit and change another persons work.
| Cynake wrote: |
The argument that it wasn't what we voted on, is dead. You keep bringing it up, and I keep demonstrating, and quoting, how it's concluded, but that I have no interest in chaining ourselves to the past if it doesn't make sense, and if it's important enough for you to revisit, then go ahead. |
I'm sorry, I don't see where the issue of allowing the public at large to edit everyone elses submissions was ever voted on and approved. Where? The only time it's been discussed was in the Wiki discussion of last year, which never really got resolved.
| Cynake wrote: |
You said time after time I argue until other people give up, and then go and act on it as if it was approved. What does that mean, if not what I took it to mean, and asking you to name a few (or even one) occurrence? Were you not calling my judgment, reasoning, and ethics into question based on my track record, as justification for why you think you think it's dangerous to trust me and why you should be consulted? |
Well, aside from the Wiki issue, how about after the second theme contest? You had a lot of ideas that you posted, no one agreed with them, and then you expressed shock that we wern't running the following contests the way you laid out, saying "I thought it was already decided..." Plus, I never said that you ACT ON things as if they've been decided, I pretty much was saying you ACT AS IF they've been approved. Subtle difference there, you should pay attention to what you read a little more closely. Also, where the heck did I say that I needed to be consulted? I certainly never said that in any way shape or form. What I've said from the beginning is that the BOD should be apprised of any changes you plan to implement before they are implemented. And, even though I didn't say this, I will agree with you that I think it's dangerous to trust you with this. I personally feel that you are more interested in making M.A.I.L. fit your vision of what you think it could and should be, and less interested in going with the majority. When someone disagrees with one of your proposals, I've yet to see you do anything other than post mountains of words arguing your point over and over and over; you don't seem to be able to bend or go with the flow. I get the impression that in this, and with any other change or "improvement" you might make, it's going to be your way or the high way. You can take that personally if you want, but it's not intended as such, I'm just saying what's on my mind.
| Cynake wrote: |
When you said you that changes, no matter how trivial, you think is necessary to know about before it happens... did you not mean that you wanted me to bring up, and discuss, every minor change before including it in the design? |
This is another example of you being way too literal. Common sense should tell you that it's not important to say "Hey everyone, we're changing line of code A here to read like this now so that we don't get X error anymore, just thought we should discuss", but that it is important to say "Hey everyone, we're going to tackle the new header this week; for reference here's how it's gonna' look/act/work"
| Cynake wrote: |
| Quote: | | In fact I think it does warrant another discussion in the near future; re-reading the link you posted as the most relevant link to recent discussion, I still don't see a resolution or an approval. |
Unanimous approval.
"Drax - I'll throw my stone in for a 'proceed' vote.
Aderamelach - I continue to support the proposed list of changes.
Blaise - I, too, bow before public opinion...
Tesserex - I also extend my BOD voice approval.
Sakredchao - i give a go ahead. i'm for most things proposed, and either I'll be around or won't to put in my .02" |
Bull. A Wiki format was never approved, and the threads you're pulling this info from are pre-wiki discussion. I've even had phone conversations with Kim about this issue, so I know for a fact he is not on board with an open, editable by anyone who so desires format.
| Cynake wrote: |
I asked, in just about every post in the version of this thread last year, for you or anyone else to mention your specific fears about wikis, and all I got back was "I don't know, I just want to see it done before I decide". That is irresolvable. I will not ask someone to put weeks of their time into designing and building something, just so at the end someone can say "Ehn.. actually, don't like it. Let's do something else." *ESPECIALLY* when, as I said last year, I'm pretty sure the things that you don't like about are things I can tell you right now *will* be the case. So, no need to waste time building it. You already know the final result is unacceptable.
|
Maybe you didn't read thoroughly enough when people responded. Fears expressed then, and that I still hold now, are that articles and weaves will be edited willy-nilly with incorrect and misleading information. It will create a god-awful amount of work for the admins to comb through these edits each day and determine if they should stay or be reverted to the original. Members are going to get upset if their stuff is edited; I would be. By making information open, members loose their copyright on their pictures and text; anything they submit can then legally be ganked and used by anyone else for profit. If you don't think that's a big deal, talk to people who teach classes or sell kits; it's a really big friggin' deal. Is that specific enough, or am I still being too general? |
|
|
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 1491
Submissions: 0
|
|
|
| Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:15 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Blaise wrote: | Dierdre, I wasn't singling you out in this, and did not mean to accuse. I thought I detected an escalating tension, and I was only trying to metaphorically yell "Look, a bird!"
If I was mistaken, then I apologize, and no harm done. |
No worries, I rarely take offense to anything. 
Ooooo! Pretty birdie! |
|
|
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 1491
Submissions: 0
|
|
|
| Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:19 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Drax wrote: |
| Quote: |
Nope. Current projects are:
---
1. Finish the new header.
2. Make front page more newbie friendly.
3. Re-organize articles section.
4. Change weave section to link to weave pages instead of just a picture.
5. Give people the option to donate content to M.A.I.L.
6. Re-design the gallery.
7. Add a "projects section".
8. Add a "Good, Bad, and the Ugly" forum.
9. Encourage monetary donations a "dollar club".
10. Change the member ranking system.
11. Remove/combine little used forums on the M.A.I.L board.
12. Re-organize the links according to content.
|
That's from the 2005 post (http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=4573&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45)
I think that list still stands as a good list of things to do. I notice that the list doesn't explicitly mention 'wiki,' although I suppose the argument is that some of the ways of implementing vague terms such as "re-organize" could entail such a method.
The problem with the 2007 post (http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=9417&start=15) is where it ends -- it doesn't. It just died off with most people disagreeing on a full-open wiki format, which is where everybody appears to be still. Actually, where we ended up was a request to play around with a wiki format to see how exactly it would work. I think that might allay a lot of worries. |
Hey, would you look at that. Nope, I don't see a wiki format on that list, and I don't see it voted on and approved either. Apparently Drax and I have the same faulty memories on this one, because we both seem to be under the impression that the Wiki issue died off and was never fully resolved. |
|
|
Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294
|
|
|
| Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:21 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
I'm with Deirdre on this, I know that Kim does not like the idea of submissions being editable by anyone, I don't like it, Drax seems to not like it much and members are expressing a dislike for it also.
Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu |
|
|
