On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Nirav Patel <o...@spongezone.net> wrote:
> It seems this is going in a direction detrimental to everyone's cause, > and I do mean everyone. Please, lets be civilized about this and try > to come up with a middle ground. > > I appreciate that you would like to find a situation where people can work together - but did you have any middle ground in mind? Cause I don't really see any right now. > First, It is clear that having two pygame websites will do nothing but > confuse the community of users and developers. I disagree with this. The other things that having two pygame websites would do (besides cause confusion) is show in what ways the new site being constructed is or isn't going to actually be any better than the current one; and it would create competition and comparisons between the two. Good ideas implemented well on one side will inspire and educate the other. Besides, having two websites for pygame users for a while doesn't mean there will be two websites forever. If one wins, the other will probably die, one way or another. A little confusion in the short term may well be worth it in the end. > It is also clear that > the current pygame website has flaws. If by flaws you mean spam comments on the doc pages, I agree but that is very easily fixed without doing any "new site" development at all. If you mean anything besides that, I think to say it has flaws is overstating the condition. It very much achieves what it went out to achieve. What I would agree is that there are many opportunities which could be pursued - I appreciate that Jug and Devon want to pursue them, but quite frankly they are speculative improvements, the true value of which is unproven. So it seems to me that the impass is Jug and Devon said they didn't want to work from the existing site or it's underlying technology or framework - while Rene doesn't want to deal with the cost of switching the site over to another system for the mere promise of the improvements they want to bring. The only way I see to really resolve this and come up with the "middle ground" you want is to let the ideas and possible value of the new site that has started development become an actual reality. > Finally, it is clear that the > new website being proposed is not acceptable to replace the current > one. > > I don't think that it is all that clear exactly what the website will become. What the new website being proposed is, is just a proposal. And that proposal is currently to throw out everything on pygame.org and develop using a system that the current site developer/maintainers have no experience or desire to work with, for a bunch of features whose value to the community seems good on paper, but in the end is not actually clear. If, on the other hand, the website being proposed becomes a reality though, and people who use it think it's super awesome, and it looks like it will likely be well maintained, then the new proposal would be something like "migrate the project data over, migrate the site over to the main server, and then let everyone love the awesomeness", which is a very different proposal. I understand that not everyone wants mailing list traffic about it, > but I think the first step would be to not have a seperate closed > mailing list discussing website development. Discussing it here > allows everyone to debate about features/implementation without > building it first and then getting rejected. > > I agree with keeping it on list - but I have to ask, are pygame-users offended/annoyed/displeased by the mailing list traffic on this? I'm not aware of anybody who has said so. Have you heard from anyone who is? I can't speak for Zack, but when he posted "Let's do our best to keep drama off the mailing list" I interpreted it to be more like saying people should keep their posts practical and professional instead of being emotional - as opposed to saying "take it off list guys"
