Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Forum thoughts
Re: Forum thoughts
From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:34:59 -0700
The only thing I would change is move RButil as the only subforum of
rockbox helper software... I dont think there would be enough traffic
of the sub topics you have there to warrent their own sections.
2009/3/29 Bryan Childs <godeater_at_gmail.com>:
> All sounds perfectly sensible and very reasonable to me.
> Gets my vote.
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM, David Hall <dmhall_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was hoping to start a discussion on the goals of the forums. I
>> brought these ideas up (in a limited and Llorean-focused manner) on IRC
>> the other day - but wished to see if I can't get more people involved in
>> the discussion.
>> What are the goals of the forums? If the goals are simply help and
>> support Rockbox SVN why do we have an "unsupported builds" sub-forum?
>> Why do we have a "repairing broken hardware" sub-forum?
>> I'm not arguing against these areas - I'm just not sure why the
>> forum groupthink appears to be against the discussion of other topics
>> not technically unique to Rockbox. I am, of course, speaking about the
>> http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=20612.0 "On The Go
>> Last.fm-like Playlists from Rockbox" thread, but not only about this
>> project. There are plenty of great programs which work with Rockbox,
>> and I think we serve Rockbox users by at the minimum acknowledging them,
>> and possibly "supporting" them by giving the Rockbox user an orderly
>> one-stop place to learn about them.
>> The web is full of, frankly, bullshit information about Rockbox and
>> suspect support will be easier if we provide a (limited) clearing house
>> for many-things Rockbox. In my opinion, Rockbox is better served by
>> nurturing "helper" software (which might not be specific to Rockbox)
>> such as this than nurturing "Unsupported Builds".
>> When I talk about "Unsupported Builds" in this context, I'm
>> drawing, in
>> my mind, a strong distinction between those builds designed and
>> distributed to test specific FlySpray tasks aimed at inclusion in SVN
>> and those builds which are collections of rejected or abandoned
>> features. That being said - I think there is a strong argument to be
>> made for nurturing even the latter type of build. Kugel is a perfect
>> example of someone who started out making an Unsupported Build of
>> questionable relevance, and who stuck with it, drank the Rockbox
>> Kool-Aid, and become a valuable commiter. I would hate to drive people
>> such as him outside Rockbox.org, and would rather incubate their
>> explorations in-house.
>> A new top-level subforum is created with a name something like "The
>> Rockbox Lifestyle" ;)
>> The current "Hardware" top-level forum is moved here.
>> The current "Repairing broken players" second-level forum is moved
>> here, and no longer a sub of "Hardware".
>> The current "Unsupported Builds" top-level forum is moved here.
>> This action alone, IMHO, draws a clear distinction between things
>> Rockbox.org currently claims to support and things Rockbox.org is
>> currently simply nurturing.
>> A new second-level subforum is created under "The Rockbox Lifestyle",
>> titled "Rockbox Helper Software"
>> Aforementioned Last.FM software goes here.
>> The excellent QTScrobber can go here, obo willing why not give him
>> home on Rockbox.org if he wants it?
>> WinFF gets its own sub-forum here.
>> My thoughts were that all helper software could start as a thread under
>> "Rockbox Helper Software" and be given its own third-level subforum if
>> activity warrants it.
>> Now that "Unsupported Builds" are moved into the clearly distinctive
>> non-supported-stuff sub-forum create a "FlySpray Testing Builds"
>> top-level subforum for just that. Lets draw a clear and distinct line
>> between the sandbox given for people to play in and the testing lab
>> which needs guinea pigs.
>> Give RBUtil its own top-level forum, likely under "Getting Started..."
>> New Layout:
>> Rockbox General
>> Administration / Forum business
>> Rockbox General Discussion
>> Feature Ideas
>> WPS and Appearance Customization
>> Plugins / Viewers
>> User Interface and Voice
>> Getting Started: Installation / Removal
>> Rockbox Development
>> Getting Started and Compiling
>> FlySpray Testing Builds
>> New Ports
>> The Rockbox Lifestyle
>> Repairing Broken Players
>> Rockbox Helper Software
>> Rockbox Font Converter
>> Unsupported Builds
Received on 2009-03-29