Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Forum thoughts
Re: Forum thoughts
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:34:49 -0500
David Hall wrote:
> At first glance I like that idea. If I understand you correctly you are
> Getting Started: Installation / Removal
> Automatic (RBUtil)
>> 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
I'm not sure I like this. This criteria would put, for example, iPod
Loader 2 at the top of the list for getting its own subforum.
> 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.
Well, your list of applications are some of the obvious candidates
anyway, but they each have different qualifications, so they may have
been "top of my head" kinds of things, but they do warrant discussion, I
> 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.
I feel so, at least.
> 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.
Well, in terms of "obligation" I'm the sort who likes to have a
consistent policy. Even if it's consistent in the sense of "We'll add
subforums for the ones that attract our interest" it at least means if
someone's project isn't added we have a reason. We do avoid this with
As to why we're discussing it now - Reorganizing the forum like this
takes a matter of seconds. If everyone gives it the nod, and (assuming
we use categories) we come up with a good selection of category names
this could be done tonight. No sense in waiting on it, really.
Received on 2009-03-30