Re: website map verse 3

yanikn@... wrote:
> A question: do we need/want user profiles similar to deviantart, 
> facebook, etc.?

nothing too fancy.  but if you go to sites like microsoft or 
adobe creative suite they have community for their users, 
developers, designers.  actually adobe's site is lame and 
exclusive, administrator controls exposure.

> 
>  From what I understand this part of the design is from a social media 
> perspective. 

that perfectly describes this part of the design.

I think we (video editors, open source community) can create 
better integration of users art, guides, tutorials - 
specific to lumiera.

That might be taking off more than we can chew not only
> technically, but in terms of community management. 

The type of wiki (uwiki) that is intend for the site is 
dynamic enough to control the data.

I personally accept the job as manager of community...or 
coordinator, call me whatever you want -- ;) kinky wink.

Otherwise it just
> becomes a dead community without much use. Also, there seems to be no 
> clear motive for creating all these profiles.

I think that in this context you more refer to the four 
types of persons in COMMUNITY than 'profiles'; user, 
developer, merchant, donor.

be careful to not exaggerates the number of types of 
persons.  those four were chosen to represent the current 
dichotomies of open source projects.  work and money.

each person has one profile, I wrote 'profile' to mean a 
center for personal data of any type and multiple types 
(user, developer, merchant, donor).

note, there is a variety of types in each type.  for 
example, developers include documenters, educators, 
marketers, and promoters.

I suggest that we use the dynamics of the wiki to automate 
views of data in our community rather than explicitly type 
persons and label them generically everywhere.

how a person contributes to the project implies where their 
contribution has place conceptually, effectively and at the 
site as a record of our community story.

for example when you enter the page from link COMMUNITY -- 
DEVELOPERS  the view is more than only a list of names -- 
the challenge of verse 3 is to realize those views.  the 
most obvious view is to integrate the developer to their 
jobs and work with the project all in some periodical 
reports of project status.

the chance is that the quality of our site at all parts is 
increased greatly when those periodic reports are authored 
by an expert communicator.  we already have a periodic 
report scheduled and expert communicators, like Raffaella.

  People can network
> elsewhere, they don't need our silo to do it in.

is there any open source non linear video editor user 
community site?  if there is no competition then we cant lose.

but seriously, we should try to compete with other community 
sites and since open source is like a virus anyway, it can 
integrate and disintegrate quickly.

the chance is that at some near future most persons will 
store all their personal data local with a program to manage 
meta data and another program to send out types of data to 
various social sites automatically -- that at the same time 
  maximizes their exposure and mocks the nonsense of our 
current 'web', or 'network' or whatever you youth are 
calling it these days... joke, I am age y23.

I think, uWiki is ready for that future, theoretically if 
not programmatically.  this future is known as distributed.

The great part of uWiki is that it is created to distribute 
a wiki.

my interpretation of distributed is,

for example, if Lumiera.org and the fictional 
Transitions.com have uWiki, then I link Lumiera.org and 
Transitions.com (I may use an aggregator program that has a 
dynamic list of video editor sites, and never open a 
hypertext browser like firefox) to a document at my local 
server of how to create a scene transition.  at each site, 
uWiki automatically generates a view of the document, 
hypertext, docBook, pdf, indexes the document, and anything 
else.

Until we are in the future, I think there is more benefit 
than cost to even storing the most data that is related to 
non linear video editors at Lumiera.org.

competence with similar sites, video editors, in search 
results relates to web indexers that value per size text and 
links more than graphics, audio, or videos. *citation, any 
expert?*

we may want to filter data types to limit graphic, audios, 
videos stored at Lumiera.org.  cost to store text is 
minimal, but someone else can tell a price better than me.

I am concerned enough of media, especially, open source 
community, project integration, and disentanglement of the 
web that I want to help create this future at Lumiera.org.

> 
> I support profiles more akin to a forum username profile with basic 
> information.

to note, I talked with Christian and Hermann of 'profiles' 
or accounts.  We all favour one account to access all parts 
of the project.

> 
> I also don't really like the idea about merchant and donor profiles. I 
> don't think that they need their own sections. Donors can be recognized 
> a la wikipedia with headlines that change.

a section can have one page.  section was written as a vague 
term, I never meant to scare anyone.

I think you may have imagined the PROJECT page initial with 
an intrusive list under COMMUNITY of the four sub sections. 
  that is particularly not necessary for relatively low 
accessed sections like DONORS.

except, of donors, we really should write a full list of 
them somewhere and we should also have a form to accept 
donations.  donors are a special type of person, especially 
for open source projects.

actually, your suggestion of the donor headline is likely 
what we would put in the COMMUNITY page.  great idea.

at the COMMUNITY page wherever donors are headlined, make 
the headline a link.  the link is to a 'section' for donors 
(anchor link in page to the featured donor) but its only 
list and a donate form, or a link to the form.

of MERCHANTS, i may like to sell merchandise for open source 
projects sometime, provide to demand and a decent cause.

I agree, the section is better placed somewhere to unimposed.

only the best merchants will thrive, from seemingly nowhere 
they will appear to sell you something that you want.  no 
worries, there are no advertisements that flash while 
sliding on page.  another headline or banner is fair.

if there is no merchants, there is no section.  same with 
any part of this site.  if we create the divisions, 
emphasize the person and the dichotomy, then we suggest that 
we are thoughtful, kind, and relatively progressive to 
define an open source company.

> 
> Anyway, I have to quick run right now, but those are my preliminary 2 cents.
> 
> --Yanik
> 

In this reply, I intentionally liberally advertised my 
concerns of open source community to gain your trust as an 
enthusiastic and motivated site developer for lumiera.

andrew

_______________________________________________
Lumiera mailing list
Lumiera@...
http://lists.lumiera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lumiera
http://lumiera.org/donations.html