 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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 was referring to www.irtc.org. For the rest, see my reply to
Robert McGregor.
> Would you criticize a 5 year old about his crude drawing of a person and tell
> him it sucks? Perhaps one day that 5 year old will be Van Gogh, having learned
> and developed far beyond that initial crude drawing.
I'm not bashing a 5-year old future Van Gogh, I'm talking about a
talented 10-years old which stops drawing for three years, and is
less talented at 13 than (s)he was at 10.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 3/03/2011 22:55, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> 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.
No, it doesn't meet my standard of expecting a very simple website
to be up and running continuously, neither my standard of either
coping with a problem or asking for help. That's precisely what
a community is about, and the current www.irtc.org homepage is quite
anti-community, IMO.
About who I am, I am the author of this :
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/191.php
...I've spent countless hours many years ago helping people,
making objects, macros, demo scenes, testing new stuff. I am
the author of the default demo scene which can be run afer
POV-Ray's installation, the one with the bicuits and tea cup
(and I'm not glad that it's still there these days, after
ten years it looks pretty dated, there are enough people out
here that could make something more fresh and technically advanced)
> 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?
This was not meant to offer help, but really to express how much
I'm pissed off by what's happening.
> 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.
Watch this space.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Apparently you didn't even bother to inform yourself properly about the
> organizational structures around POV-Ray and the IRTC.
See my reply to Jim Henderson to see how much I've been implied into this.
> 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.*").
Whoever (anonymous, so far) wrote the current www.irtc.org homepage,
related or not to the current POV-Ray Team, is adopting the same
irritating attitude that I describe (mainly : the piping is broken,
we won't call a plumber, and we keep the keys of the house).
And I'm linking both because I've seen the same attitude in POV-Ray
making.
> 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.
The message on the homepage says it's a "software problem", nothing
to do with closing voluntarily, whatever the reason ! And, in your
hypothesis, there's a solution : HAND THE KEYS.
> 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.
At some point, a single person wrote that "broken, don't care" homepage.
It's that person I'm yelling at, asking that something is done, or
handled to other volunteers !
Fabien.
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.
You are more diplomatic than I, but, yes, that's the point.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
