Paul Louden wrote:
> I have a few concerns. First is that with the RBUtil section. we're just
> splitting up install questions further.
This is valid, the part of my rough-draft proposal regarding RBUtil was
based solely on the counterproductive situation we have now where RBUtil
help is scattered to the four winds, regardless of if it is
target-specific or not.
I understand your concern regarding fragmentation, as this is exactly
what I was attempting to avoid.
Not sure I have a solution, myself, at this moment.
> Much like we have "Repairing
> Broken Players" as a subcategory to Hardware, maybe we should should
> have "RBUtil" and "Manual Installation" being the only two categories
> under Installation/Removal, with "Manual Installation" not being a
> single forum, but rather containing the normal existing subforums. That
> way no player-specific names are immediately seen on the front page
> (maybe reducing non-install questions in these sections, too).
At first glance I like that idea. If I understand you correctly you are
Getting Started: Installation / Removal
> For "Rockbox Helper Software", do we really want a board for each one?
No - a board simply for ones which warrant the further division
> And what's the criteria for adding them.
Need. If there are (for example) 20 threads on different topics
regarding application X, X maybe should have a subforum
> For example, WinFF does have
> Rockbox presets. But (if I understand correctly) the extent of
> QTScrobbler's support of Rockbox is that we output the standards-correct
> logfile, and it updates it.
My choices of application names to put in my example forum tree were
just placeholders used to illustrate the idea. Do not attach any
significance to the names of the applications chosen.
> Maybe it could be split into boards like "Video Converters" "Theme
> tools" "Library Tools" and similar, rather than highlighting specific
This would work as well. My thought process behind application-specific
subforums was simply to tidy up clutter on an as-needed basis. It is
likely that doing so on a category level will accomplish this task better.
> Basically, do we obligate ourselves to add a board for every utility
> someone might choose to use with Rockbox, or every one that someone
> *does* write for Rockbox, or simply the ones we feel are good enough
> to endorse?
Rockbox.org isn't obligated to do Jack Squat, as "troublesome noobs" are
often directly told.
I don't see why this aspect of the proposed reorganization needs to be
set in stone at this point in time.
Received on 2009-03-30