On 03/03/2011 5:45 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>
>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>> ago.
>
> While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
> site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
> contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP).

I read it that Fabien was referring to the new IRTC site.
But since you mention TC-RTC may I say that it was set up as a temporary 
stand in for the stalled IRTC by the late Steve Paget. It is a 
commercial site now maintained by Thomas de Groot and myself. This costs 
money and it is for the benefit of our community.
Lately there has been a drop off in the number of entries which IMO is a 
shame. But maybe if we can rally round it will be an outlet for our 


closes on the 15th of April.
If anyone has any ideas for the topics or any other constructive ideas 
the will be welcomed.

> The people working on the
> images generally have worked hard at learning the program [POVRAy] and using it,
> whether or not their images can be classed to a 'high-quality' standard.
> Perhaps some of the preious entrants that had developed great expertise in
> POV-Ray have been absent (for whatever their reasons), but that is no reason to
> casually sling such unconstructive, anbased and blanket criticism at those who
> have participated.  They are there to learn the craft and present what they have
> done, and perhaps learn something from it.  That has been (generally) the whole
> spirit of POV-Ray and the community since it's inception (I have been using and
> present here intermittently since 1994, there others that are even longer).  The
> spirit is for everyone to learn and contribute, through praise encouragement and
> constructive criticism of what they have achieved so far.  This is one of the
> best and consistent communities I have ever run across.
>

Well said.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 5:45 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> > Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >
> >> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
> >> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
> >> ago.
> >
> > While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
> > site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
> > contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP).
>
> I read it that Fabien was referring to the new IRTC site.

Sorry, I was unaware that the IRTC had been running again recently, and assumed
he was referring to images at TC-RTC that you had set up in its place.

Other than that correction, my comments still stand.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

On 03/03/2011 8:14 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 03/03/2011 5:45 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
>>> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>>>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>>>> ago.
>>>
>>> While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
>>> site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
>>> contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP).
>>
>> I read it that Fabien was referring to the new IRTC site.
>
> Sorry, I was unaware that the IRTC had been running again recently, and assumed
> he was referring to images at TC-RTC that you had set up in its place.
>

No apology required.

> Other than that correction, my comments still stand.
>

No matter who Fabien was talking about your comments are valid and welcome.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:12:41 +0100, Fabien wrote:

> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?

Wow, what a troll you are.  Something maintained by members of the 
community for the community and it doesn't meet your standards.

Let me grab the world's smallest violin and start playing it for you.

Instead of being a jackass about it, how about offering to pitch in and 
help rather than just heap criticism after criticism on the site?

You say "any rookie using PHP could do it in two days, including me" but 
I sure as hell didn't see you step up and offer it.  Instead you decided 
to act like a jerk and criticise.

Instead of stepping up, you stepped on.  Bravo indeed - WELL DONE, Fabien.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Fabien wrote:

 > How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?

I realize you've probably built up some frustration
until it exploded, but it's usually not good idea to post
publicly in the heat of the moment.

> After the "admins are gone, pschiiiit", now it's
> a "software issue", which you don't EVEN consider
> to fix.

I can somewhat relate to this sentiment. It's a bit
strange to spend a year rebuilding this and engaging
the community in discussion and testing and then take
it down with such a vague reason and no perspective.
I'd go so far as to say it is a bit disrespectful to
a community that I'm sure would be supportive and
constructive whatever the actual problem is.

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.03.2011 08:12, schrieb Fabien:
> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>
> After the "admins are gone, pschiiiit", now it's
> a "software issue", which you don't EVEN consider
> to fix.
>
>  From the "bazaar or cathedral", you once chose the
> cathedral, and due to the useless secrecy and disdain
> for newcomers that could help, now that's a shabby
> and ruined cathedral ! I'm talking of POV-Ray, there,
> the IRTC being just the most visible victim of that
> incredible attitude.

Apparently you didn't even bother to inform yourself properly about the 
organizational structures around POV-Ray and the IRTC.

I'm not sure about the roots of the IRTC, but the recent "revival" was 
/not/ run by the organization that owns the software name "POV-Ray" - it 
was run by an individual from the community, for the community; all the 
"POV-Ray organization" had to do with it was that it supported the 
project with server space and communication channels (there is a reason, 
for instance, that the IRTC newsgroups are not named "povray.*", but 
"irtc.*").

So what you see is indeed /not/ the result of a cathedral approach at 
all, but to the contrary that of a bazaar: A shop has closed down 
because it didn't have enough customers, not enough employees, the wrong 
quality of goods, or whatever - it was /not/ a decision of some high 
priest to discontinue it, but of the person who had been running the shop.

Your problem is actually that you apparently /want/ a cathedral, where 
you can just go to and receive something, and if you don't get what you 
need you can blame it on the priests. A bazaar isn't that easy for the 
customers: They have to go round and ask where they can get things; they 
may have to invest something to get them; and some things may not be for 
offer even when they're badly needed. And last not least there's no 
single person or organization you can blame when something doesn't run 
smoothly.

So here you are, standing in the middle of the market place, crying out 
aloud that this whole bazaar you call POV-Ray makes for a shabby 
cathedral. Duh.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 01:15:42 +0100, clipka wrote:

> So here you are, standing in the middle of the market place, crying out
> aloud that this whole bazaar you call POV-Ray makes for a shabby
> cathedral. Duh.

Now that will get an enthusiastic "Bravo!" from me - I wish I'd written 
your response instead of mine. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>
> I'd be happy to volunteer to fix it. I know Smalltalk, and have used Seaside a
> bit.

I hope someone in charge (i.e. someone who has the power to mess with
the server linked to www.irtc.org) reads this and contact you.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

> On 03/03/2011 7:12 AM, Fabien wrote:
>> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>
> You could, if you want a competition, you could always enter the TC-RTC.
>
> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/

Thanks for the info, being away these years I didn't knew about it.

To the (anonymous, so far) person who wrote that incredible
current irtc.org homepage : did you know about that competition ?
If so, why didn't you AT LEAST put a link to it ?

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>> ago.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Well, I personally don't think my images sucked too hard in comparison to the
> "old" IRTC (but I suppose I'm biased).

Sorry if I appeared to say that all images were bad. Of course not.
But the average level of the renewed competition (and I'm definitely
talking about the irtc.org stuff, not anything else) was very low
compared to what it was before the Big Blackout.

The problem is not the low end of the lot, beginners are fully
welcome, and I've done my part of constructive critiscism to them,
in the past.

It took years, from IRTC creation, to get a hive of talents, which
resulted in rounds with a good number of good-to-excellent images.
Three years of interruption destroyed that, and the higher end of
last competition was just a handful of good-to-very-good, not enough
to call a "waaah" after viewing a round. Given the CPUs and memory
ressources we have these days, it's a pity that the recent rounds
were of a lower quality than three years before.

So, unless IRTC is killed once and for all* (which seems an acceptable
option rather than the hiatus), a prolonged absence will cause
harm again to the quality level, which only a continuous effort
can improve. Something SHOULD be done, and that's why the "not
to be fixed anytime soon" message instead of a call for help is
so irritating.

(* : meaning the IRTC role must be officially  _handed over_ to
  other(s) competition(s))

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message