On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:10:26PM +0100, david wrote: > Stuart Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks very much! However, I'm slightly worried about your use of "my". > > I was hoping for something that would belong to the community. It would > > be the "SAM Coupe Wiki", and wouldn't act as or be part of anyone's > > personal web site. It would consist of articles describing particular > > hardware, software, magazines, events, companies and individuals, as > > well as some documentation. Were you planning something different? > > My was more of a case of: > > a) me typing it at work and not having a lot of chance to think out my > writing :) > > b) semantics :) > > It's a community project of course... as is most things i'm involved > in these days outside of work (its hard to be involved in opensource > projects and not get more community-based :)) - and so far with the > help of a few people round here, its started pretty well.
I thought that would probably be the case. Just wanted to be sure, though... :-) > The wiki will be part of a comminity site which, depending on if > people use it or not, i hope will become useful for many ... such as > the mailing list is. :) Sounds interesting... I'm wondering what would go on that site... I think the sam-users list is fine, so I don't see the need for forums of any kind -- I don't think there would be enough traffic for that to work, anyway... Also, I think the ftp site is fine as it is, although I'm wondering if there are any mirrors of NVG. (If not, it might be a good idea.) > As soon as i've finished typing this, i'll be installing it and having > a play... (well - after i've had my microwave meal!) then its just a > matter of finishing off the rest of the site (the back-end is done... > except for a slight issue on some php code which i'm ripping my fading > hair with - but this should be sorted soon... if not, i have some > alternative code to use.) and then filling with content. > > Just a bit tired at the moemnt as i've only been in from work about an > hour - and it's been a fun packed day again :) Thanks ever so much! I know you're generally quite busy... but I think we'll all appreciate the time and effort that you're putting into this. > > There are a few things that need discussion, though. What licence (if > > any) should be used for the content? Also, how will backups be kept? > > it depends on content... if you are talking about downloads. I'm talking about wiki articles, which I would expect to be original work. Wikipedia uses the GFDL (which Debian considers "non-free", but I'm not really aware of the issues). Traditionally, we've always had a lot of public domain software, music, graphics, etc... We didn't use licences like the GPL, as there was no need for the kind of protection that these licences provide. I think the same would apply to the wiki... although if we use the GFDL, we can then borrow content from Wikipedia. > Most SAM software is fairly reasonable available. Some is not. I'm not > seeking to piss people off more than i have in the past, so anything > that may be of a dubious nature - i will keep to one side until i have > recieved confirmation from who-ever concerned that releasing it is ok. > > Likewise, in cases where someone is not happy about something being > made available, i can easily remove it. Agreed. I think that the Coupe's value is largely sentimental (but I don't mind throwing some money at it). It's nice that it's not being forgotten. I realise that flames accomplish nothing... but I find it a shame that this viewpoint isn't always shared. You could argue that I've not really done much for the SAM, and you'd be right. However, I'm very grateful to everyone who has allowed stuff to be distributed! BTW, my one (and only) concern regarding the idea of procedes for games going to charity was the matter of trust. In a world where touts make money out of aid concerts, I hope you can understand my paranoia, even though it is totally unfounded. (I hope I haven't caused any offense.) > Backups... well i've got measures in place for this Can you rely on those measures? My worst fear is that the wiki should randomly disappear one day. Unfortunately, this sort of thing does seem to happen from time to time -- segfault.org was lost with all stories, when the disk of the machine that was hosting it was wiped! > One way I am going to prevent the issue that occured in previous > attempts of a community site, of things being limited to one person, > is to open moderation and control to whoever is willing to donate any > time - and to be honest, that doesnt have to be a lot of time. Backup > of data is just one area where help is appreciated... :) I'd certainly feel more comfortable if one of us could keep our own backups. If I could download a dump of the whole wiki a few times every month and do a quick check its contents, I wouldn't feel like worrying, even if there's no need anyway. :-) Many hands make light work -- so I'm quite optimistic. > Late last year I was given a wiki to take over, when the previous > owner was unable to look after it... due to it using quite an old > engine... (very very old) - it was impossible to lock content etc. > This engine has much more control than that... only trusted people > will be able to change content... so it will reduce the chance of > anything buggering up (if you pardon the language) Fine with me! However, I think we should be as liberal as we can be with regards to who we trust. For small Wikis, this seems to be the right approach. Of course, for locked content, there must be some way to request changes. I have no idea how that would work. Cheers, -- Stuart Brady
