Hey Chris, I like your idea, though probably I won't have time or inspiration to participate.
However, I think a couple of things need to be clarified for it to work as expected.
for playback, that is, the *aximum* version that any patch is allowed to require as a minimum. That is, if you say for example 0.39, any submitted patch must be guaranteed to work on version 0.39 or higher. Participants need to know if they can or cannot use features of 0.40.x that won't work on previous versions. And they need to be sure that they are listening to the previous person's work as it really sounds. Choosing the latest would ensure compatibility of all submitted patches, but will oblige all participants to download and install it on their machine. Choosing a less recent one, would imply some constraints on what people can do, but will allow more people to participate using the version they currently own. Your choice.
conflicts and interferences between table/send/receive/value/etc names in different patches. For example, you may assign an ID to each participant, and s/he would be obliged to use his/her ID as a prefix to every name s/he uses.
Or on the contrary, you may decide to exploit interferences between patches as an extra source of fun. Indeed that would make the whole thing more interesting and justify the concatenation of patches rather than just of wav files :) In any case, a convention for ensuring a distinction between "global" and "user-local" names would be probably good. Or even you may define some predefined channels for interchanging data with an associated semantic. Although anarchy is also an interesting territory to explore.
Just thought I would contribute a few ideas, dunnow if they are useful.
Bye M.
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: La Cronaca del Carnevale di Ivrea 2007 visto su www.localport.it: per conoscere il Carnevale, per rivivere lÂ’edizione 2007. Acquistalo on line Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6431&d=20070508