ditto everything Brian just said. Devon
--- On Fri, 7/31/09, Brian Fisher <br...@hamsterrepublic.com> wrote: > From: Brian Fisher <br...@hamsterrepublic.com> > Subject: Re: [pygame] The great pySchism, was: how to remove spam comments in > pygame wiki > To: pygame-users@seul.org > Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 10:24 PM > On Fri, Jul > 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Nirav Patel <o...@spongezone.net> > wrote: > > It seems this is going in a direction detrimental to > everyone's cause, > > and I do mean everyone. Please, lets be civilized about > this and try > > to come up with a middle ground. > > > I appreciate that you would like to find > a situation where people can work together - but did you > have any middle ground in mind? Cause I don't really see > any right now. > > > First, It is clear that having two pygame websites will do > nothing but > > confuse the community of users and developers. > > I disagree with this. The other things that having two > pygame websites would do (besides cause confusion) is show > in what ways the new site being constructed is or isn't > going to actually be any better than the current one; and it > would create competition and comparisons between the two. > Good ideas implemented well on one side will inspire and > educate the other. > > > Besides, having two websites for pygame users for a while > doesn't mean there will be two websites forever. If one > wins, the other will probably die, one way or another. A > little confusion in the short term may well be worth it in > the end. > > > It is also clear that > > the current pygame website has flaws. > If by flaws you mean spam comments on the doc pages, I > agree but that is very easily fixed without doing any > "new site" development at all. If you mean > anything besides that, I think to say it has flaws is > overstating the condition. It very much achieves what it > went out to achieve. > > > What I would agree is that there are many opportunities > which could be pursued - I appreciate that Jug and Devon > want to pursue them, but quite frankly they are speculative > improvements, the true value of which is unproven. So it > seems to me that the impass is Jug and Devon said they > didn't want to work from the existing site or it's > underlying technology or framework - while Rene doesn't > want to deal with the cost of switching the site over to > another system for the mere promise of the improvements they > want to bring. > > > The only way I see to really resolve this and come up with > the "middle ground" you want is to let the ideas > and possible value of the new site that has started > development become an actual reality. > > > > Finally, it is clear that > the > > new website being proposed is not acceptable to replace the > current > > one. > > > I don't think that it is all that > clear exactly what the website will become. > > What the new website being proposed is, is just a proposal. > And that proposal is currently to throw out everything on pygame.org and > develop using a > system that the current site developer/maintainers have no > experience or desire to work with, for a bunch of features > whose value to the community seems good on paper, but in the > end is not actually clear. > > > If, on the other hand, the website being proposed becomes a > reality though, and people who use it think it's super > awesome, and it looks like it will likely be well > maintained, then the new proposal would be something like > "migrate the project data over, migrate the site over > to the main server, and then let everyone love the > awesomeness", which is a very different proposal. > > > > > > I understand that not everyone wants mailing list traffic > about it, > > but I think the first step would be to not have a seperate > closed > > mailing list discussing website development. Discussing > it here > > allows everyone to debate about features/implementation > without > > building it first and then getting rejected. > > > > I agree with keeping it on list - > but I have to ask, are pygame-users > offended/annoyed/displeased by the mailing list traffic on > this? I'm not aware of anybody who has said so. Have you > heard from anyone who is? > > > I can't speak for Zack, but when he posted > "Let's do our best to keep drama off the mailing > list" I interpreted it to be more like saying people > should keep their posts practical and professional instead > of being emotional - as opposed to saying "take it off > list guys" > > > >