Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia

[Glen Larsen]

Federico, thanks for writing this. There is a mixture of hope and despair in the responses, as well as an understanding of the complexities in an all-volunteer site.

The content in Mutopia is substantial enough to be a great resource and managing this content via volunteers will always be a challenge. There have been a number of updates in the past year -- utf-encoding conversions, project status updates, data consistency repairs -- and these have been good starting points. Much of that effort took place without engaging mutopia-discuss and that was probably a mistake.

As long as the content is good (correct, aesthetically pleasing, readable, and using a reasonably current version of LilyPond) I believe the site holds value. It is not as good as it could be.

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Federico Bruni <address@hidden> wrote:

[snip]

 

3. Requisites for the lilypond files

Some people are discouraged by the criteria to get the files accepted. For example, they may create the score with Denemo and then export the lilypond file, but they cannot check the quality of the file.

I'd suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss list and see if someone can clean the input. Personally, I'd be glad to contribute this way.

As long as the Denemo-based transcriber understands that they may not be able to "round-trip" their submission. 

4. Web interface

Currently the contributions are handled via github or by email.

Github is a good way but it's for geeks only. There are currently only seven contributors:

https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/graphs/contributors

The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving contributions@ emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions this way.

A modern web interface may attract more contributions?

Probably, but I've come to believe that updating the content is more important.

 

-glen (just an active Mutopia-Project volunteer)