Dear Robert, You make a good point about community involvement. This campaign is all about encouraging much more of it. We want to enable a far wider community of LiveCoders to contribute to the feature set of LiveCode. Our little team cannot do it all.
We have recently set up livecode.org, and we already have a Community Manager in Richard Gaskin, whom we talk regularly with. He is entirely independent from LiveCode Ltd. This is a route we will be looking to expand in the future, ultimately its possible there will be some kind of Open Source Advisory body outside of LiveCode Ltd. We would love to see more in the way of actual hands on involvement from the community to allow a wide enough pool of contributors that could be selected from for such a body. This is something of a chicken and egg situation. To have a strong vibrant Open Source community making regular contributions to the source, we need to give you the tools to easily contribute. Infinite LiveCode is all about doing exactly that. So, I would suggest, the logical conclusion is, if you want to see a strong Open Source community with real clout, lets get this campaign funded! Warm Regards, Heather > On 12 May 2016, at 22:40, Robert Mann <r...@free.fr> wrote: > > Same thought from France! and approximatively same wait period of more than > 10 years for audio recording at 44100 kHz compressed audio. > > Now I suspect one point of view would be be :: "well that is precisely what > we want to clear.. by allowing faster wrapping of existing utilities.. we > need the infinitum to complete the audio functions!!!!!! " > > Now, i was not aware that the 2013 kickstart only brought 30% of the cost > needed to get livecode 8 through. I thought it would be more 50%. > > And I earlier said I would be happy to participate regularly to the > development.. but.. but.. for a more reasonable priced indy "hobbits" > version, and I wrote ok if that cost 150 bucks every now and then. > > it is arguable that I could then decide to pour through 75$ more into the > community version instead. (and so on...) But then frankly, I feel the need > for some kind of community guidance body to accompany mothership. > > As the situation stands, livecode drives the whole lot. So community money > contributors just support "blindly" livecode without any form of > representation. I wonder how long that can go on just like that. > > That is by no means a message of distrust vis a vis CEO, I have great > respect for what they're up to. I just wonder how viable that form of > "trust" organization is viable. And frankly i'd be curious to learn about > how other communities get organized in such a situation. > > As Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami points out, there will always be some tensions > between the two versions. And the resulting balance of functions might never > seen as right so long as decisions are solely taken by one party > exclusively. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Infinite-LiveCode-Message-from-CEO-tp4704550p4704570.html > Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
