Hi Rich and others, sorry for being away from GGoups and missing your messages. The core of the TW knowledge network can be accessed here: http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/113574373/TiddlyWiki The "Visual Taxonomy" link will open the same structure in the "graph view".
I am not sure why I am seen as discussed on "leaving Google Groups". According the "Transmedia" paradigm, I have to follow people to be visible and co-operative. It can be GG, FB, LI or any other platform for communication, but we still need a "single entry point" (a "Collective Memory") to "see a bigger picture", stop "reinventing wheels" and find the experts in particular fields of knowledge. LikeInMind, above, is used to prototype such a "single entry point" / Memory. It will be transferred into TW format as soon as P2P, multi-user and versioning are demonstrated / developed. Now, when most of the resources are collected "under the same umbrella", I feel ready for efficient management of the development of P2P Collective Intelligence platform. Your thoughts? Cheers, Dmitry On Sunday, 15 January 2017 17:01:49 UTC+13, RichShumaker wrote: > > Dmitry > >> thank you for the great observations. Would you have an idea what was so >> attractive with TWC compared to TW5, or was it just a "market saturation"? >> > > Response > TWC met a need many people had and was then further developed to make it > even better. > > TW5 was created as a NEW product that followed HTML 5 standards. > Because of that there was no migration from TWC it just needed to be NEW. > So anything that is HTML5 TW could be used to work with that as a > standard, no need to rework the product to make it work as you so often do. > Many amazing things have been created because of this fact that TWC > probably never would have been able to do effectively. > > In regards to leaving Google Groups > I am not sure how new you are Josiah except for a long time people were > debating leaving Google Groups. > > The general consensus was 'Why?' as it is 'Good Enough' > Then most of the developer went to a development platform, GitHub, to do > most of their work. > If you ask me this is where development is best served as you can easily > 'fork' something and go in your own direction. > Or you can work with the people together. > Or BOTH. > And GitHub is designed for just such a project like TW5. > Developers also use the Google Group, TiddlyWiki Dev. > > During the previous discussions of lets move from Google Groups everyone > was saying lets 'Build something Better and use that' > Meaning Eat Your Own Dog Food. TiddlyWiki is Google Groups. > This allows the most flexibility as no one relies on anyone else as you > can create your own thing for you, and share. > Do as much or as little as you want, when you want. > > Since that time people have been working on an infrastructure for TW5 to > do just that except it takes time to create something like this. > > So that is why I think most don't want to jump to any other platform as we > want to build our own or have our own. > We outgrew Google Groups, and <Insert Any Product Here> we might outgrow > that too. > If we had our own platform then we don't have to rely on the tools others > create as we can create our own and we won't outgrow it. > > Rich Shumaker > > On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 6:01:57 PM UTC-8, Josiah wrote: >> >> Ciao Tobias >> >> To continue on that one point. I think you are right that I could go >> another way. Into a more honed environment. Though, if so, I'd more likely >> take it local with interested folk face to face if it got the steam up >> enough. >> >> The question for me remains, and where we will probably forever tussle >> (so long as we GG), is whether differentiation requires segregation or not. >> IMO, GG won't serve anything that could balance those. BUT some other forum >> types, probably. >> >> So far you have intensified my existential ennui :-). >> >> Best wishes >> Josiah >> >> On Thursday, 12 January 2017 08:43:32 UTC+1, Tobias Beer wrote: >>> >>> Hi Josiah, >>> >>> >>>> Over the last several months there has been a lot of e-pub discussion >>>> (the fact you never read one I forgive you for and hope you will accept >>>> the >>>> example even though you know nothing :-). >>>> >>> >>> When one is not around, they're not around. ;-) >>> >>> My point? In a different type of forum it might well gel better. To get >>>> beyond one demo. E-pubs have many shared issues that better collectivity >>>> could help. TW could be a great e-pub format. Here we get splinters on it. >>>> Real steps remain at the edge. IMO this happens because GG is inadequate >>>> to >>>> fostering anything other than transient emailing/posting. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think leverage is what you're after but rather *traction*, >>> traction and *support* for a very explicit *project*. Now, one might >>> argue that e-pubs can be a significant project to help push TiddlyWiki out >>> onto the big stage more (and thus create some more leverage to do bigger >>> proects ;-) but... and of course you agree, this place is a terrible forum >>> to try and manage the ambitions of a TiddlyWiki e-pub project. >>> >>> At least, such a thing would require a propper project context. For me, >>> atm that would be a github repo, since you can address all the nitty gritty >>> detail from goals and requirements, to functional and technical >>> specification all the way to voting for and implementation features through >>> actual code and all that ...in a defined spot. But it takes for a lead >>> developer (architect) to take on the job not only to understand the >>> code-base, but to kind of manage the overall process, so people stay >>> realistic of how to get from start to finish. If you want an even more >>> "engaging" experience than a github repo can deliver, well, I don't know... >>> you're trying to give life to a highly complex social experiment with a >>> desired outcome... that's never quite a simple thing to pull of, no matter >>> what the environment. Without some professional organisation, there's a >>> good chance a bunch of voluntary, self-made coders and idea-generators will >>> find it hard to form unity, but it's possible as we all know. OpenSource is >>> a thing, it's alive and it's kicking... but everyone doing it also knows >>> its problems... the most prominent one being that that guy didn't show up >>> for half a year: So what's that about? ;-) >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Tobias. >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b9535cef-2b1f-41a9-9f7b-9061a7b80d7c%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
