 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hildur K. wrote:
> The question remains, WHAT can be done and by WHOM? Who is willing to cut
> the crap and give the green light so we can all go on nurturing out
> precious little baby, the IRTC?
>
> Who started this competition originally? Who "owns" it?
>
> If nothing is done, we are just going be kept in uncertainty forever.....
>
> Hildur Kolbrun
>
>
>
I was trying to avoid that whole train of thought, because it can't be
clear. Otherwise the POV-Ray team would have fixed things already. If
the competition is 'owned' by the POV-Ray team, then it would be an easy
fix to appoint a temporary admin and keep the web page as is. Since that
hasn't been done, and I'm not going to assume they just didn't think of
something that simple, the real situation must be more complicated.
It is my understanding that the POV-Ray team provides the webspace.
That's it. They don't 'own' the competition, so they can not transfer
the admin role to someone else. If they can not contact any of the
previous 'owners' then there isn't really anything they can do about it.
Even if they could contact someone who has since given up the project to
someone else, what right or capability do they have to give 'ownership'
to a new person?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:32:59 -0500, Hildur K. wrote:
>
> > This person cannot possibly expect the whole world to go to standstill,
>
> Yes, of course - because if they've ended up in hospital or had a serious
> family emergency, their *first* thought should be IRTC, not the health and
> well-being of a loved one or perhaps that they're in a coma or something.
>
> Not that I know any of this to be true for the person in question, my
> point is let's try to have some perspective here - since we don't know
> the cause, let's not assume that IRTC should be their first priority.
>
> Jim
guesswork based on fantasy. What happened is none of our business, unless
this person wants to share it with us, of course.
According to the sparse facts we know for sure, nothing happened, except
this guy moved to a remote place. For some unknown reason he decided to cut
off from this community without preparation. Nobody to take over. No plan B.
We know this because he said he would be out of reach for some time. He
The whole structure around the IRTC seems very obscure. Is it possible for
an admin to simply disappear and take the competition with him??? And if he
really ended up in a coma for the rest of his life, then no IRTC??
In the past I never thought that the IRTC was run by one person only. And I
always thought there was a connection with the POV team. I certainly never
thought that this particular person, the admin, "owned" the competition.
How did that happen? Who "owned" it before?
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't know the answers to any of your questions, Hildur. I'm simply
saying that we shouldn't assume that anyone's life revolves around running
a website, and if something more severe came up, to demand that they do
something doesn't respect the fact that they may have something serious
come up in their lives.
There's an alternate competition being run in the interim, so participate
in that. It seems silly to me to demand that the site admin be handed
over when it's not clear who actually owns the site and whether or not
there's anything that *can* be done.
If the loss of IRTC is the most serious thing that's ever happened in your
life, you've been lucky. Cope.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> It seems silly to me to demand that the site admin be handed
> over when it's not clear who actually owns the site and whether or not
> there's anything that *can* be done.
(not only responding to you)
Guys, you are repeating incorrect assumptions and guesses already clarified
in various previous discussions, particularly in the stills group. There is
no uncertainty who "owns the site" or anything like that.
Just get some perspective here: Do you think everybody who can do something
about the IRTC situation has just been sitting around for years with an
alternate plan to jump in at the very instance something goes wrong, has the
time to do that instantly, and really nothing better to do? Just get real,
please!!! Things take a bit of time and wild speculation about facts already
known to be false won't get you *anywhere*. Those speculations are just
waste _your_ own time -- lots of ray-tracing to do, you don't need a
competition for that! ;-)
Thorsten, POV-Team
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>
> (not only responding to you)
>
> Guys, you are repeating incorrect assumptions and guesses already clarified
> in various previous discussions, particularly in the stills group. There is
> no uncertainty who "owns the site" or anything like that.
>
> Just get some perspective here: Do you think everybody who can do something
> about the IRTC situation has just been sitting around for years with an
> alternate plan to jump in at the very instance something goes wrong, has the
> time to do that instantly, and really nothing better to do? Just get real,
> please!!! Things take a bit of time and wild speculation about facts already
> known to be false won't get you *anywhere*. Those speculations are just
> waste _your_ own time -- lots of ray-tracing to do, you don't need a
> competition for that! ;-)
>
> Thorsten, POV-Team
Maybe one of the reasons that there is a bit of speculation is that people
are unclear of the situation. True there has been clarifications of wrong
assumptions but it has been piecemeal and not in the same place. It might
help the community if someone could take the time and trouble to spell out
the situation, simply.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
> In Sabrina's and Hildur's points of view we have the core of the problem: is
> it long enough for us to take over the IRTC?
>
> case 1: no. We can give a little longer the benefit of doubt, and give the
> admins a chance to explain what happened. Why would reasonable
> people (as I think they could be) disappear so suddenly without
> good reason? We have a subject to occupy us for the next 6 weeks ...
>
> case 2: yes. We consider the situation has lasted already too long, and we
> must act now. Whatever can be the reason of the admins'
> (non-) behaviour, we give ourselves the right to set up any
> competition we want, with any form, with anybody who agrees
> with this. People here have already spent time for the new
> competition.
>
> (Question: What if Steve and other kind volunteers spend a lot more time
> setting up the site the competition in a rush AND the IRTC admins are back
> next month? What is the probability of this event? What about the notions
> of 'right', 'ownership' and 'respect'?)
>
> Today, my opinion is that we can 'wait' until end of April (Pseudo-IRTC
> 'Before and After' round), but prepare for an eventual new competition,
> with a relatively smooth transition. Every day makes the probabilty of a
> reply from the admins tend to zero. This would allow volunteers (thanks to
> them) not to have too much pressure on them, with all the community staring
> at them and awaiting them to finish.
>
> So, no rush for preparing the new IRTC until end of April, just make it
> feasible, but 'prepare' the future. If no news at this date, then we'll
> consider the old IRTC definitively dead for us, whatever happens with the
> admins after that, and we (Steve ...) have two extra months to make the new
> competition work fine.
>
> Bruno
Considering the last posts on the subject, I agree even more with myself ...
And I add this: it is no place here to make a trial, and the discussion has
already been too speculative. What ever how far we can go in speculating
and in the fantasy, this won't change the situation. I would appreciate
that we change from a negative behaviour as it was so far to a more
positive one: enjoy raytracing, post images instead of blah-blah, and be
happy we have such a free yet marvellous tool (POV) at our disposal, and
nice people to help us (again for free). So why do some feel so offended?
It is just a hobby ;o) ...
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> >
> > (not only responding to you)
> >
> > Guys, you are repeating incorrect assumptions and guesses already clarified
> > in various previous discussions, particularly in the stills group. There is
> > no uncertainty who "owns the site" or anything like that.
> >
> > Just get some perspective here: Do you think everybody who can do something
> > about the IRTC situation has just been sitting around for years with an
> > alternate plan to jump in at the very instance something goes wrong, has the
> > time to do that instantly, and really nothing better to do? Just get real,
> > please!!! Things take a bit of time and wild speculation about facts already
> > known to be false won't get you *anywhere*. Those speculations are just
> > waste _your_ own time -- lots of ray-tracing to do, you don't need a
> > competition for that! ;-)
> >
> > Thorsten, POV-Team
>
> Maybe one of the reasons that there is a bit of speculation is that people
> are unclear of the situation. True there has been clarifications of wrong
> assumptions but it has been piecemeal and not in the same place. It might
> help the community if someone could take the time and trouble to spell out
> the situation, simply.
>
>
>
> Stephen
Nobody is asking for an instant fix, but you know, days, weeks and months
are passing by.
Like Stephen said, people just need to know. Why has the IRTC come to an
standstill, and what can we expect in the future.
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:35:50 +0100, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Guys, you are repeating incorrect assumptions and guesses already clarified
> in various previous discussions, particularly in the stills group. There is
> no uncertainty who "owns the site" or anything like that.
Thanks, Thorsten - I should've clarified that it wasn't clear to me
(because it isn't, as I have not been following the discussions that
closely). I just get annoyed when people start making what sounds to me
like demands of others who are kind enough to volunteer their time to do
something.
But I've also been a little hypersensitive to the issue recently as well,
as I've recently had to deliver bad news to nearly a thousand people
about their status in a program, and I've had a few who felt entitled to
remain even though they didn't meet the requirements. The responses have
ranged from sad understanding to outright threats.
This feeling of "entitlement" that some people have just drives me over
the edge sometimes. Apologies if I caused anyone offense.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>Imagine that IRTC was your project, and something came up in your life
>that prevented you from even having internet access. And when you got
>back online, you found that other people had taken over your project.
>
>
I can think of two analogies to this: Imagine that some bad,
unavoidable thing happens and you have to be away from home for a
while. On the one hand, if you get home and find that your neighbors
have come in and rummaged through your stuff, made fun of your ratty
underwear, and so forth, you're going to be upset. On the other hand,
if you get home and find that your neighbors have come in and fed your
pets, cleaned out your fridge, and so forth, you're happy.
So--which is it? Danged if I have any idea, just some random thoughts
on the subject.
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My initial question was:
> So what's the plan? Is there going to be some effort
> made in continuing the IRTC, or will it be left in
> permanant limbo?
If this has been answered, it hasn't been clearly communicated. From the
responses given by the POV-Ray team, the answer seems to be "We haven't
decided, and we won't for at least three or four months."
That's fine, and there's nothing the matter with saying that. So how about
the following:
1. The current plan, if any, should be posted on the IRTC site. That way,
there wouldn't be speculation, people wouldn't have to try digging through
this site or the mailing list, wondering if they've missed some
information. A plan can be as simple as "We will wait until <DATE> before
taking any action."
2. If there's any hint as to what that action might be, that would be
helpful as well.
3. If there's a date for any of this - even if it's months away - please
post that, too.
4. If there are reasons that could help people understand (and even
sympathize) with how/why/when the POV-Ray team is doing whatever actions
they are, it would be helpful to post these as well.
Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
