Quoting Parsec:

Quote:
Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
If you prefer a more technical aspect, we could use a solid data model for what would be needed in an updated database that can handle the requested improvements. I think both DJ Doena and Mark Harrison have external database models that can handle additional fields, Maybe one of them would be willing to help work on something that could eventually be a plugin or PHP solution.
(I've seen various proposals - something about layers, and separating movie data from DVD data., User-defined fields, etc. )

Ok, just trying to give things a little push
I just figure if we have a site up with a few example profiles and a working idea towards how it's all going to happen will make this project move along rather then us sitting around waiting for Ken's input after those releases he mentioned.

Open a support ticket stating you never got a response.  I had to do that and my access was granted within a day after I did that

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
So as a test case, maybe somebody could take a stab at the "overriding principle" thing that would allow a common sense consensus decision to be reached quickly when any rule fails to cover an unanticipated or confusing situation.

I would love to work on this. Unfortunately, I fear that the best way to make it fail would be to open myself this thread. You proposed me to lead the rules team, and at present time I think this is impossible since too many users consider me at best as a troll, at worse as somebody who just wants to ruin the database. Anyway, I know that many users consider me just as somebody who defends his ideas. As for me, I think I proved I'm able to build something that works in an interesting manner for all users.

I tried on three occasions (two on open Forums, and one in limited Contribution Rule Committee) to propose to introduce a general sentence in the introduction of rules insisting on the fact that rules will never cover all cases, and that when their application leads to problems, contributors are allowed to justify why they chose to not introduce wrong data in the database. In all cases, it appeared that a large majority are against this principle. When opening those threads, I thought we could work on a consensus on the wording about the sentence to add, I just got reactions against the idea itself.

From what I can see after several years on those forums, most people prefer strict rules that cover all cases than rules giving the general sense of what we want in a field, that covers 99% of cases, this being covered by a general principle : be intelligent in the remaining 1% and document your reasons for screeners. So we saw rules grow and grow to reach a number of pages that are impossible to understand quickly for newbies, those rules being sometimes precised for specific cases in a thread managed by VirusPil which gives links to Ken's statements that become new rules except that they are not inside rules... And despite all those "clarifying" pages, we still have odd cases that jump in our attention. This is really a nightmare in my opinion, but it seems that the majority of users that post here think it is good.

Is it useful that I try a fourth time to open a thread to work on this ? Seeing some reactions against me in another recent thread that discussed more of the OP supposed motivations than the point itself (in that thread I quoted three times the sentence I thought was the solution, and nobody answered just a word about that), I think it would be more efficient if somebody else tried to reactivate the idea.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
... I think it would be more efficient if somebody else tried to reactivate the idea.

Ok, I appreciate the honest post. That was putting the Community first. 

Next document update, I will remove you as the Leader

Three other points:

(1) Your discussion actually made me rethink some things. I can now understand why Ken and most people prefer strict rules: it streamlines the submission process. You submit according to the rules, period. You submission is approved or not, period. Any discussion about the rules is held outside of the submissions process. If we allowed "common sense" submissions, then the ensuing arguments could bog down the submissions process. The rules are made or changed by consensus, and we should respect the process. For example:
- the recent Nude Nuns thing would have come to consensus quickly if all the options had been presented
- the related T4xi caused (me) confusion only because one profile was missing the Original Title. Simple to fix. Move on.

So, what comes out of this for me is a need to define a consensus building process that people respect. Then we need to accept the results until or unless the same process is subsequently used to establish a new consensus. And there should probably be a grace period (1 year?) before the same rules can be brought up again.

(2) I was embarrassed to find that I had totally ignored the excellent efforts by VirusPil to keep tarck of things. I sure hope that he does not feel that there was any agenda there. There was none - just my ignorance and overlooking the thread in my haste. I notice that he has not posted in this thread, so I hope that he will, and let us know any thoughts he has on anything. Again, I apologize for this gross oversight. 

(3) I'm thinking maybe we try taking a smaller bite of the apple. One idea that got near 100% approval was the Contribution Wizard. How about we build a Beta of it, and see what other ideas come out of that effort? It could be fun, and we will get a useful tool out it. Is there a Developer (not me) that will come forward to work with GSyren to build a prototype? Maybe start a new thread to establish some early guidelines, then go away for a couple of weeks or so to make something, then come back and let us play with it?

Hey Tom,

Actually it was your CCViewer I was thinking of when I mistakenly mentioned Mark for the database model. I think you have an enhanced relational database , right?

Anyway, as far as the Contribution Wizard is concerned, don't be constrained by the document. It was a checkpoint in time of what we were talking about - a concepts document - certainly not a design document. Let's do what makes sense.

One of the reasons I don't offer to do it is the fact we need different perspectives on things. Even I get tired of me sometimes. We should take advantage of different creative points of view.

So, if you have some ideas in the CW and would be willing to code it, I say go for it. And when the code settles down, if it makes sense, you could ask me to try and add the disc scrape from the Contribution Assistant. At a minimum, the CA could read an XML file created by the CW and add the disc information - it already can do this today, internally.

What I understood is that the CW would:
- ensure that the minimum amount of information is available for a new submission
- perform validity checks where possible
- require explicit documentation (with dropdowns) for all proposed changes
- automatically submit the profile and enter the source information (may not be possible without API changes from Ken)

I'm not sure about the partial submission stuff. I think we would be happy with whatever makes sense that you are willing to do.

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:

So, what comes out of this for me is a need to define a consensus building process that people respect. Then we need to accept the results until or unless the same process is subsequently used to establish a new consensus. And there should probably be a grace period (1 year?) before the same rules can be brought up again.

This is an absolute need, I am not sure about the grace periond being that long.  But an more clearly defined process on how to biuld the consensus is needed.  An outline of steps to go through.  As an example, when polls are put in place to find the concensus how long should they be up, what percentage defines the concensus...etc.

Anyone who wants to help on rules drop me a note.

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
Hey Tom,

Actually it was your CCViewer I was thinking of when I mistakenly mentioned Mark for the database model. I think you have an enhanced relational database , right?

Yes, my CCViewer uses a relational database.

Quote:

Anyway, as far as the Contribution Wizard is concerned, don't be constrained by the document. It was a checkpoint in time of what we were talking about - a concepts document - certainly not a design document. Let's do what makes sense.

One of the reasons I don't offer to do it is the fact we need different perspectives on things. Even I get tired of me sometimes. We should take advantage of different creative points of view.

So, if you have some ideas in the CW and would be willing to code it, I say go for it. And when the code settles down, if it makes sense, you could ask me to try and add the disc scrape from the Contribution Assistant. At a minimum, the CA could read an XML file created by the CW and add the disc information - it already can do this today, internally.

What I understood is that the CW would:
- ensure that the minimum amount of information is available for a new submission
- perform validity checks where possible
- require explicit documentation (with dropdowns) for all proposed changes
- automatically submit the profile and enter the source information (may not be possible without API changes from Ken)

I'm not sure about the partial submission stuff. I think we would be happy with whatever makes sense that you are willing to do.

On the one hand it would be a nice new task. On the other hand my time is currently limited.
Let me think about it. If I have a good idea for ground work, I will start on it. If I have set something up, I could put my subversion repository for it in a shared dropbox folder and you and/or other plugin developers can share the work with me.

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
@Scooter1836, I'm loving all those thoughts.

So we would have at least these three tasks going?

(1) Priority set of rules updates
(2) Contribution Wizard
(3) Definition of Consensus process to be used for Rules Change submissions to Invelos (I like all those ideas you have on this)

Only question is, how do we get some folks working on them? Anything you can do to get stuff organized, please go for it ...

I think the first thing to do is define a process for concensus building.  In the past that has been a big part of the Ken's process that has been missing.  For smaller things that has not been as much of an issue.  What I can do is come up with a proposal for that process in the "Contribution Rules Committee forum.  But I would not be able to do it until later next week.  However that may work out since some key people are staill awaiting access.

After a consesus process is agreed upon we should then formulate the list of rules/issues we want to tackle.