Mark, > The biggest problem with the GitHub system is that *everything has to > wait for approval. And sometimes those things appear to be forgotten. This > dis-incentivizes the desire to contribute*. Even after contributing, one > may have to wait months before it gets into the main TiddlyWiki.com site.
I think this is very very true - as someone whose spent more than a little time on these groups you see it happen all the time. We were told back in February that there was a new system coming that would > make contributions easier, I think this is crucial. There is much discussion of this, but no clear sense of a *timeline* or a series of *required steps/milestones* to get there. On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 9:43:04 AM UTC-5, Mark S. wrote: > > The biggest problem with the GitHub system is that everything has to wait > for approval. And sometimes those things appear to be forgotten. This > dis-incentivizes the desire to contribute. Even after contributing, one may > have to wait months before it gets into the main TiddlyWiki.com site. > > Of course, it doesn't help that the GH approach is endlessly draconian, > but people might be more excited to thread the needle if results were more > immediate. > > We were told back in February that there was a new system coming that > would make contributions easier, possibly within a multi-user TW-like > environment leveraging AWS* . I wonder if that is still in the pipe-line? > > The problem with Toolmap is that it is (1) Proprietary and (2) Maintained > by a single person. > > You either understand the concerns of proprietary software or you don't. > If you've ever had a proprietary solution whisked away from under you, then > you do. > > But this line from the TOS is concerning: > > "Your stuff may be transferred as assets of Dynalist if we're bought by > another company." > > Problem (2) is the same as with the current GitHub solution. It's also > unclear what I should be submitting. If I make a small macro or filter to > help someone out, should I be bothering David about it? > > I think the best ultimate solution would be a MediaWiki type wiki > environment where multiple individuals can contribute. > > -- Mark > > *I'm relying on my memory here, so apologies if I have the details wrong. > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 3:59:09 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> TWiRB = TiddlyWiki internet Resource Base. (The IMDb for TW.) >> >> *I have been very struck by David Gifford's list of resources at >> TiddlyToolmap <https://dynalist.io/d/zUP-nIWu2FFoXH-oM7L7d9DM>*. Its >> increasingly used and welcomed. >> >> It is having good "synergistic effects" in that a user wanting to look at >> past solutions can find them MUCH more easily. >> >> This seriously leverages innovation. >> >> It is quite obvious its having tangible positive effects. >> >> Let this be not just David's work for us. But, rather a pledge to help >> him solve the "info fragmentation" problem TW has permanently, by being >> inspired by his work and building off it. >> >> --- >> >> David's list is not itself a TiddlyWiki. I don't see the problem. Yes, it >> would be optimally best if it were a TW, since that is the general fetish. >> BUT, I am more interested in what happens than any theory about what >> "should" have happened that didn't. >> >> It works. >> >> --- >> >> Over on GitHub there is serious work of another kind going on, from a >> different perspective, that leads off in other directions. Good ones to do >> with ideas of automated data harvesting & inter-working. >> >> But the better elegance of GitHub I do NOT think has in anyway yet >> grasped the nettle of "resources-in-the-wild". Why should it? >> >> BUT IF the idea is that a good resource list can ONLY come though some >> GitHub mediated system you need to belong to in some way. Well, forget it. >> That is wrong and actually fogs the waters. >> >> --- >> >> My point remains, outside GitHub, it is not the driving force in logging >> resources. Why? Because most TW users don't use it. In other words, its not >> a definer. >> >> The easiest I can say it is: *Rather than WE adapt to GitHub, GitHub >> adapt to US*. >> >> --- >> >> This is why I suggested that a good interim step is to help focus less on >> the "method" of communicating Important Resources and more on a basic "*data >> structure for a resource*". By concentrating on getting the "CHUNKS" of >> info correct enough they can be imported into anything. Combined. Re-done. >> In a manageable way. That seems best for longevity. >> >> I wrote a post about it to Dev group here: >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywikidev/kz_EvphpMzY >> >> It is maybe not understood? >> >> I think it is important. David's pragmatism has, basically, given the >> BASIS for a solution to a long-term problem. >> >> I would like we find some kind of scope of how to organise such info to >> move on. A data structure seems easiest. >> >> David's list is approaching 600. If it gets much longer it will become >> unwieldy to develop from. >> >> --- >> >> Allora. >> >> I said most of what I wanted to say & not too badly. >> >> Josiah >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/67872f4e-48bc-4a93-bf55-917fd672692d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
