Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Forum thoughts
Re: Forum thoughts
From: Alex Parker <parker.alex.e_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:11:13 +0200
David Hall 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 current
> 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 I
> 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 a
> 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
I agree in principle, but would just like to emphasise the "split"
between what we do and don't support (which soap has captured).
Received on 2009-03-29