If you want your own feature, then you can fork the source and create your own version. No one can stop you (unless you keep your improvements private: then they have legal recourse). Now, I don’t know how the Discourse project is set up exactly, so I’m guessing a bit, but if it’s like most other open source projects then Jeff gets to be arbiter because he maintains the most popular branch (boosted by virtue of being the original). Someone could “take over” by forking the source and being a better branch maintainer, or adding features that are genuine improvements, and eventually people will start using that branch and they would then be the main arbiter (this isn’t too uncommon).
I don’t know why Atwood rejected the contributions in 2013, but he seems to be a fairly reasonable person in general and I’d suppose that he had reasons. Sometimes the reason might be no more than that the dev doesn’t have time to deal with the code integrations, or even the people themselves. Even when people are making unambiguous improvements like bugfixes, there’s overhead with dealing with the changes. And outsourcing that process has a cost too; you have to find someone trustworthy that shares your philosophy and is willing to do low-visibility gruntwork.
It’s possible that Jeff handled some things badly; I don’t know. Sometimes real-life events can take their toll as well. Software development can be a messy process.
Yes, and Discourse clearly has a design esthetic, and codinghorror clearly cares a great deal about that.
I think some of the tension on this board is because the design esthetic isn’t really a great fit for this board. Codinghorror is clearly proud of how his software nudges people to write the sort of post that he thinks makes for nice on-line discussions. Whereas this is a board full of strong-willed people who want to write what they want to write, the way they want to write it, damn it!
For example, I recently got that post about “you’ve replied too many times to poster X in this thread; maybe you should let other people participate more and not monopolise the conversation.” (My paraphrase)
That was in a thread that’s been going on for three months and has 241 posts. Yes, clearly, I’m monopolising the discussion with my three replies to one other poster. I am so ashamed, and so grateful for Discourse trying to keep the thread from being derailed.
I was thinking of that as an example. But you know, I do know a poster on another board who sometimes writes 15-20 short replies, all in a row, and it’s actually pretty annoying. Some limit might be nice. It could be more than 3. Maybe 5. And that’s a parameter the software lets you set.
So I feel like it’s a nice feature that you CAN limit that sort of thing. It might not be a great fit for this board (where I’ve NEVER seen that kind of thing be a problem) but I can see it would be useful in other situations.
The short post thing is similar. I would like to be able to have a 2-3 letter reply sometimes (Like “yes” or “no” or “NM”) but that’s also configurable. TPTB could change that, if we had an active admin.
I once “got in trouble” with the software after I wrote too many separate responses to people, asking me to please edit my last post instead of making another one. All I had to do was wait out the edit window and I could make another post.
There are probably a number of settings that could easily be changed at at the top admin level, and some of the complaints could quickly be addressed if there was any admin who could do it.
This happens in the caption contest and the crossword puzzle clue contest. We’re the only ones playing, and nannybot tells us we’re posting too much. There shouldn’t be an arbitrary limit set by the board; that’s what mods are for if things ever get out of hand.
This is true, but while it may apply to some of the random complaining that we’ve heard (the continuous scroll, for instance, which is what we used to call a “design center” – that is, one of the fundamental underpinnings of the system design) many of the suggestions (like that comments that should be possible with every flag) are not in that category at all, but are simply arbitrary judgments that don’t affect the design aesthetic. Yet we seem to have got defensive pushback from @codinghorror on pretty much all suggestions across the board, which as I intimated in the other thread on flag comments, takes away a potential win-win collaboration and the open-minded consideration of constructive comments from actual users.
Quite true, but let’s be fair here. If you want to talk about “harmless and fun”, think about how long SDMB didn’t allow avatars, and how strenuously some objected to that feature when TubaDiva quite reasonably enabled it. Or the prohibition on inline images. We still can’t directly upload images but the “onebox” feature effectively creates inline images anyway, and as far as I can tell, the SDMB culture has not imploded. I have been critical of @codinghorror in this latest kerfuffle, but let’s face it, he’s not the only one with a history of claiming to know what’s best for us.
Those are all side matters. The key purpose of the SDMB is to allow people to start threads to exchange ideas.
If the software is saying, “nope, you’re not allowed to make that type of thread or post in that way”, that’s a problem. Software shouldn’t dictate content in that way. That’s what the mods are for.
Sure, I’ll agree that Jeff was perhaps a little more defensive than was ideal. He did seem to come to the board with the partial intent of gathering feedback, but the conversation never really seemed to coalesce into anything constructive.
Personally, I think a few of our own members got things off on the wrong foot and attitudes never really recovered. There were some that seemed to hold Jeff personally responsible for every problem on our board, as if he had any influence over our choice, and regardless of whether said problems were differences in design philosophy, actual bugs, misconfigurations, or whatever. Anyone would get defensive over being blamed for stuff out of their control. Especially since (the royal) we chose Discourse, and if (according to some) it wasn’t a good fit for our forum, that could hardly be pinned on Jeff. It’s not like he sold us something under false pretenses, but some of us acted as if he did.
You continue to mistake the perfect software for SDMB with the perfect software for everyone. No one disputes that our perfect platform would not automate moderation to the extent of Discourse. But you are simply wrong when you extend that to all message boards.
and so grateful for Discourse trying to keep the thread from being derailed. 