[geeklog-devel] Story Templates (was Re: About the "internal" and Webservices APIs)

Oliver Spiesshofer oliver at spiesshofer.com
Sat Aug 11 15:15:39 EDT 2007

Joe Mucchiello wrote:
> Those of us out here is user land have to do things this way. Just 
> because you have CVS access doesn't mean you should just checkin 
> anything you feel like. I'm not saying you do that Oliver, I'm just 
> saying there is nothing about your proposal that makes it better than 
> the ratings plugin. 
sorry? I dont get your point. I put a featuer up for discussion, not 
entering into a comeptition with one you proposed some time ago. The 
fact that I discuss it means that I want other people s input.
and this IS the gl_dev mailing list, in which core code is discussed...
> But the ratings plugin isn't supported by core and every upgrade 
> people using that plugin have to put that ratings_option tag into 
> every thtml file they want ratings to exist in. (OOo, an idea. See 
> next email...) So while porting a hack from version to version can be 
> difficult, porting an extension from version to version is just 
> annoying. But your proposal isn't any more core-worthy than the 
> ratings plugin, really.
again, this is not a competition. we simply have a misunderstanding on 
what my idea is supposed to do and what it is meant for, therefore any 
discussion about how to do it seems not really helpful as I know realize.
> I should move this to another thread but I'm lazy. This is not really 
> directed at Oliver but at the whole core team. Where is the Geeklog 
> roadmap? How are decisions about adding core functionality made? Is 
> there a list of projects for 1.4.2? 1.4.3? 1.5? Is there any 
> architectural guidance? Should Oliver write his idea into the core or 
> should he write a plugin? Who decides? Roadmaps are prominently 
> displayed on most OSS webpages. Geeklog's page is completely silent 
> about it.
to give you my very personal view on that, the others who are in the 
core team can confirm this or not. we are not a commercial operation. We 
are a group of people that got together to write code and publish it 
under the GPL. the people who are writing core code select, if 
necessary, among those who contribute to the code (with plugins, patches 
for example) with a certain quality new members to contribute to the 
code too. All others are free to fork the code and do the same by 
themselves, or criticize what the current core team is doing. but they 
should not expect that the current core team includes whatever they ask 
for. the core team is using GL for their own sites or even jobs. 
whatever time they spend on the code is usually to make their own 
interest in the code reality. If a proposal for a new feature aligns 
with the time, interest and abilities of one of the core coders, they 
probably implement that code.

The relationship between being user-friendly and responsive to other 
users problems and demands is a mix between the individual's character 
and the hope that a more distributed program will attract more 
contributors of plugins and reveal insecurities and bugs.

That is, however, the second level of importance. I have personally no 
interest in coding something that I do not use. And I have no interest 
in helping complete strangers with a code that I do not use. if i help 
them, its is only to strengthen the community. And since all our 
schedules are all quite full (dont ask me what my normal day job is), we 
have to set priorities in what we code and therefore our own interest is 
always a level above strengthening the community (= helping others, 
coding for them etc)

in short words: if you want something implemented, you have to market it 
to the core coders so that they like the idea and do it. Or even provide 
a 100% finished patch towards the source code. Otherwise it will not 
become core code. In return, if a feature you want does not happen, it 
was not "sold" properly to the coders. We do not have a parliament that 
decides who's code comes first. We have a group of people with personal 
interests. a roadmap would only reflect that. It would not change what 
was implemented first.

If I have an idea I write it in this list and often get a "What the 
hell?" and then do not do it. Other times I think its small and then 
just do it, and even then get a "what the hell" and remove it. In any 
other way I guess we would spend a LOT of time to come to an agreement 
what to do in the next 3 years of development anyhow.


More information about the geeklog-devel mailing list