Re: [pd] a simple, user friendly place to post and link to patches, externals, libraries, etc.
Taking this to pd-web@iem.at instead of keeping it on the list...
Chris McCormick wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:00:01PM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
i think we really just need something where people can upload a patch or zip file with one click, and then write a description of it.
this makes at 3.5 clicks compared to 1 click (but i guess the "1 click" was not to be meant literally).
in practice things are a bit more complicated: you have to know where you can click for "add file"; and the list of items you could add might be longer than what you really want to see.
Also, when someone uploads something cool into plone, does anyone hear about it? Is there an RSS feed of recently contributed tunes/patches or anything like that? I think that could encourage use.
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:36:11AM -0500, marius schebella wrote:
I strongly support that idea too! youtube for pd patches. and having a button inside your pd pulldownmenu that says "publish on you-pd.org" which would make it a one klick action. if we have a standardized description line inside the patch it could be easily parsed into a web description... what I also was thinking of for a while now, (and some people already work in a similar direction) is a virtual place to jam together. marius.
So maybe rather than, or as well as a 'curated' Pd website, we could have some kind of a web log/rss feed anybody can easily post patches and tunes, and others can easily follow the action by subscribing to the feed or visiting the website often. We could even have this content CC'ed to a special high-attachment-volume mailing list that people could subscribe to if they prefer to receive this kind of thing by mail. What do you think, Steffen? How hard would it be to knock this into the existing Plone framework, or should it be started as a separate site?
but... many patches are written for a special situation or for a special hw setup.
Then those people shouldn't post their patch to the feed, I guess. Or they can but with caveats.
Best,
Chris.
------------------- chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
Taking this to pd-web@iem.at instead of keeping it on the list...
do you realize that pd-list has 50 times more subscribers than pdweb ?
pd-list has 1000 and pdweb has 20 (not counting disabled subscriptions in either case).
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:34:02PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
Taking this to pd-web@iem.at instead of keeping it on the list...
do you realize that pd-list has 50 times more subscribers than pdweb ?
pd-list has 1000 and pdweb has 20 (not counting disabled subscriptions in either case).
So? pdweb is the more appropriate place for this discussion now that people have said they think it's a good idea on the main list. Wouldn't you say?
Chris.
------------------- chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
So? pdweb is the more appropriate place for this discussion now that people have said they think it's a good idea on the main list. Wouldn't you say?
It's not a matter of what's on-topic, it's a matter of who you reach. I think that there's a lot of people on pd-list who don't even know that pdweb exists.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:45:02PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
So? pdweb is the more appropriate place for this discussion now that people have said they think it's a good idea on the main list. Wouldn't you say?
It's not a matter of what's on-topic, it's a matter of who you reach. I think that there's a lot of people on pd-list who don't even know that pdweb exists.
Exactly. It's a matter of who I reach. The people who aren't subscribed to the pdweb list don't want to be reached by people who want to talk about the implementation details of the way in which Pd is represented on the web. That's why I am not sending the message to them, but to the people who do want to be reached for those kinds of topics (because they're subscribed to the pdweb list).
If you're worried that those people on pd-list might actually be interested in pdweb topics, why don't you send a message to the main list encouraging people to subscribe to the pdweb list?
Best,
Chris.
------------------- chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
Taking this to pd-web@iem.at instead of keeping it on the list...
do you realize that pd-list has 50 times more subscribers than pdweb ?
pd-list has 1000 and pdweb has 20 (not counting disabled subscriptions in either case).
Oh, and that the address is pdweb and not pd-web ... :)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On 06/12/2006, at 4.46, Chris McCormick wrote:
So maybe rather than, or as well as a 'curated' Pd website, we could have some kind of a web log/rss feed anybody can easily post patches and tunes, and others can easily follow the action by subscribing to the feed or visiting the website often. We could even have this content CC'ed to a special high-attachment-volume mailing list that people could subscribe to if they prefer to receive this kind of thing by mail.
I think this sums up the current attitude quite well. There are two essentially different balls in the air***:
1) a curated section following a fitting set of form "rules" 2) a steam of all things Pd properly also having a certain form
What do you think, Steffen? How hard would it be to knock this into the existing Plone framework, or should it be started as a separate site?
This is the key: I don't know plone. I just have ideas like anyone. But both ideas can be, in it's basics anyway, be realized in the given settings of puredata.info. Indeed 2) is already running and have been for a while at the art/tracks/patches wiki pages. 1) would be fairly easy to initialize since most of it is to find the fitting form and start doing it (and taking over parts of* the frontpage for it).
So what if we actually just did it - in what ever form we can manages to do - now? That is, i (and/or who ever wants to) try to work out a more detailed form of the curated section, and those who want to bring new life to the wiki pages with focus on sharing Pd work do that**?
* saving bits like the news section. I've suggested different settings in the 'pd blog' thread.
** fx merge the three wikipages if that fit better with your ideas. Writing some guide lines for how to sub things, i fx thinks it would be a good idea to keep some kind of sections (tunes, patches, video, abstractions, etc).
*** Then there is graphical re-designing and re-structuring/writing of texts/pages as proposed a wee while ago...
-
Chris McCormick -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Steffen