[Compcomm] My ideas (for the record)

[Erkin Bahceci]

On 6/17/07, RYX <ryx at ryxperience.com> wrote:
> > Apparently there is an agreement about using subdomains, which I think
> > is a good idea too. But the problem boils down to the same thing
> > again: names. It looks like both sides are really stubborn and neither
> > side can let go of their *beloved* domain names, compiz.org and
> > opencompositing.org, and neither side will be able to persuade the
> > other one on using "theirs".
> >
> > Honestly I'm absolutely uninterested in this discussion as I don't
> > care which domain you use, as long as there is a single forum and a
> > central place for this stuff with its subdomains. I think you are
> > discussing stuff that is really unimportant, and discussing it to
> > death.
> True, but if we wouldn't, the worst solution would get most likely
> favored before any decision is needed at all (mainly to rush things and
> because it is fun making big announcements). That'd be bad for us all.
> (Otherwise I would happily stop replying to pointless discussions)
>
> >
> > So here is a solution:
> >
> > If both sides really can't "give up" their domain names (which is
> > apparently the case), why don't you just do multiple DNS aliasing to
> > make compiz.org and opencompositing.org point to the same site so that
> > it looks as if it was compiz.org and opencompositing.org,
> > respectively, (as well as their subdomains), so whenever an
> > "opencompositing.org admirer" goes to the opencompositing.org address,
> > he would see the same content as a "compiz.org admirer" sees at
> > compiz.org. The links can be relative (something could be worked for
> > links to subdomains too). The actual content
> > (forum/wiki/bugtracker/etc...) would be the same (or would be
> > retrieved from the same database).
> Sounds like a good solution to me. But I am afraid that there will still
> be the question which site we use to let the domains point to.


Well, apparently nobody seems to be able to convince the other side on
that point either. I don't see very compelling reasons to prefer one
over the other. To me using any of the two would be ok, as long as
they have the necessary structure/content: the subdomains, a forum, a
wiki, a bugtracker, etc... and as long as they can take the load.

I would suggest flipping a coin :P, but maybe you can try this:

People who have worked on or are in charge of the sites provide a list
of things that should be modified on or added to each site (a todo
list) to reach the requirements for the community site. And then let
us choose between the two in an *objective* way (aiming to minimize
the necessary effort on the site), instead of the seemingly quite
subjective arguments thrown from each side of the tennis court.
Because otherwise you won't reach a decision if you go on like this.

And try to be as objective as possible in coming up with the todo
items. Also consider how load issues would be solved (if any), and how
the currently unknown final release of phpbb3 affects the site's
situation.

Keep your emotions out of this. Aim to provide the best site for the
users/devs/contributors instead of trying to do the best for your ego
(or your "side"'s pride, or whatever). Really. And at the end, don't
think letting go or changing your mind will make you look bad. If you
can't compromise even just a little, we'll get nowhere.

Regards...