Re: [Libreplanet-dev] Fwd: fsf groups extension patch

[Peter]

On Thursday 09 April 2009 21:56, you wrote:
> I'm not trying to ban people from using subpages. They can if they want,
> as Manchester has. I don't want to go very far in telling groups how to
> organize their specific pages.

Facebook, youtube, myspace et al. all define exactly what every person can and 
will do. So we do the same,  what is good one group, is good all. What one 
group does, all groups do. What isn't acceptable for one group, is 
unacceptable for all. For me, a Group defines exactly what every group will 
do. We're not running a wiki, but a local groups network. And as these 
programs are very specific about how people conduct themselves, so should we. 
We provide templates and forms because they serve the purpose of Libre Planet 
and its mission. We provide specific calendars for specific purposes which we 
use to trigger protest marches, campaigns, and emails. Our network has a 
single goal and everyone works to achieve that goal. This is not a wiki for 
groups to create arbritrary pages. It is about training and teaching people 
how to run and create free software ethical groups. 

In four years I estimate 6 million members in 600 thousand groups speaking 200 
languages in 250 countries, which is about 0.1% of the world's population. A 
monthly donation of $5 will raise $30 million per month or $360m per annum. 
This means one LP member per 1000 people. Is that your vision? Where do you 
see Libre Planet in four years?

> But I think from what I've seen that they 
> are not the best way for us to approach organizing the entire wiki. 

The WWW defines every resource as an URI which is a tree structure, so 
assuming this structure doesn't exist or shouldn't be implemented denies the 
web itself. Every wiki page is defined by the URI and therefore is by 
definition a subpage of the web. Are you suggesting that throwing all files 
into one directory works best only for wikis, or all websites, regardless of 
software? That's wiki thinking, its not how the web was designed to work. 
wikipedia and wikidictionary are flat files, but organizations are not. 
Turning them into flat files creates more work than necessary and serves no 
other purpose than 'wiki experts'. Libre Planet uses complex data that are 
best expressed using the proper structures. Manchester have got half-right, 
they are our experts in group management.

>
> I'm also not saying we won't install your Subpages stuff. If groups are
> using them (and Manchester is), then it makes sense to support that use.

That's good news.

I had to think about this and realize we have different development goals. 
Initially, my idea was to extend the wiki to provide group features. However, 
it never occurred to me that the wiki would bring its own culture with it, or 
that you were interested in anything other than a local groups network.

This whole discussion basically comes down to the fact that we're using a wiki 
and therefore will have a wiki community and do things the wiki way.

My understanding is that we will take a program and modify it to do local 
groups networking to promote a free software ethics culture. The fact that 
the program happens to be a wiki is irrelevant to me and the way it is 
traditionally used. So I am thinking facebook, youtube, myspace, but in a 
group context, rather than a personal one.

My other consideration is that you said this site is a prototype, which means 
we may replace the wiki with something completely different. For this to 
happen, we need to create a design that can be implemented in any program, 
very much like the UNIX(tm) specification and the GNU implementation. If we 
design according to mediawiki, we cannot later easily transfer the design to 
another program. Changing the wiki to something non-wiki will adversely 
affect the wiki community, but have little (wiki) impact on others. So I see 
no benefit in establishing a community that will later constrain us and limit 
our expansion and growth.

Unfortunately, my encounters with wiki experts show they don't understand what 
namespace, portal, and tree structure mean, so I have little confidence in 
their technical advice. I do, however, respect their administration skills 
and website management. However, none of the major wiki sites run groups, so 
I suspect they have about as much experience as anyone else. Few of the wiki 
'groups' are local and meet frequently, which is exactly what we require of 
our groups. We should be turning to Manchester for advice on upgrading the 
wiki because they have the right group experience we're looking for.

Perhaps our views are not incompatible, but I don't see an obvious way to 
develop local groups through a wiki culture, the two appear irreconcilable to 
me. Further, the 'wiki constraints' seems unnecessary for what we're trying 
to achieve.


Regards,

Peter