New forum structure?

PROPOSED NEW FORUM STRUCTURE:

About
DiscographyDB
SC
1. Main
2. Public
3. Subcommittees (topics must have [VIS], [TECH], [BFL] prefix)
General
0. Wiki
1. Our skills
2. Name, domain, hosting
3. Ownership, decision-making, hierarchy, legal status
4. Finance: income, sponsorship, marketplace
5. Technical: database format and structure
6. Submission process, who can submit, sub limits, needed votes
7. Release submission form
8. Submission guidelines, allowed data
9. Display options, page modelling
10. Search function
11. Other
Discogs
Chat

Credit for the idea goes to Kergillian.

Poll details:
- duration: 4 days
- vote cancelling: allowed.

Thanks, dmaxx - definitely needed to eliminate the logjam, keep the focus on the db, and open up space for subcommittee proposals and polls

Following the discussions in the chat session I have to agree that this sounds like a good idea.

Looks OK to split the SC, SC public and subgroups topics imo.
Is the subgroup section also public? Otherwise I would make it number 2 and the public number 3.

If the subgroups are public we should somehow prevent it from getting to much mixed up with the general structure.

corne_mo wrote:

Looks OK to split the SC, SC public and subgroups topics imo.
Is the subgroup section also public? Otherwise I would make it number 2 and the public number 3.

If the subgroups are public we should somehow prevent it from getting to much mixed up with the general structure.

SSC: anyone can view, only SSC can post. To switch 2 and 3 seems logical indeed, will do that.

Shouldn't there be a seperate header which gathers the different polls that are gonna be made by the (S)SC? So these don't get mixed up somewhere?

The polls will be SC only, and there aren't too many current threads in the SC forum (and there will be fewer when the SSCs get moving) so I don't think that will be much of a problem.

If we find they are getting lost, we can add a special subgroup for polls later and transfer any polls to it...

OK, I thought the SC would also give out polls to the complete community. That was what I was pointed to.

Hrm...there will certainly be polls for the community as well. I didn't think about that. I think those should be in the public SC section, and should be simultaneously announced/linked on the front page like this one was...

Maybe they should than be made sticky as long as the poll is open?

^ Done.

Voted Y. SC 2 and 3 needs to be changed though.

corne_mo wrote:

Voted Y. SC 2 and 3 needs to be changed though.

They will.

For those who haven't read through SC chatsession 4: 2008-04-26, the key reason for creating new forums instead of simply using the [VIS], [TECH], [BFL] title prefixes in other forums was the possibility to create more open-view closed-discussion threads, this time adding in "consultants."

At the moment, the SC is mostly visionaries and idea-folk, and we need more help in the areas of business and legality, and the technical aspects of the site (coding). People with those skills would be added to the SC Sub-committee groups to help discuss these things, and hopefully get things moving along (more quickly).

Addendum: I think the current structure is too cluttered. I don't know if we want to simplify the structure now, but I think it'll only get harder as time goes on. As I see it, we could have:

- About
- DiscographyDB
SC:
1. Main (Discussion closed to non-SC members, open for all to view)
2. Public (all open)
3. Subcommittees (topics must have [VIS], [TECH], [BFL] prefix) (Discussion closed to non-SC subcommittee members, open for all to view)
General:
0. Wiki
1. Human elements
- 1. Our skills
- 3. Ownership, decision-making, hierarchy, minus legal status
2. Company/Foundation organization
- 2. Name, domain, hosting
- 4. Finance: income, sponsorship, marketplace, plus legal status
3. Database form and function
- 5. Technical: database format and structure
- 6. Submission process, who can submit, sub limits, needed votes
- 7. Release submission form
- 8. Submission guidelines, allowed data
- 9. Display options, page modelling
- 10. Search function
11. Other
- Discogs
- Chat

Due to the different levels of Technical detail and know-how required at certain steps, I could see keeping most of the Database form and function sections by them selves under the DFF header, but I think the others can be folded back into one forum.

it's a yes from me. good work!

Nice work dmaxx.
I'm just watching now as the new forum structure gets put in place and my initial reaction is a positive one.Thanks.

The structure is now completely implemented. If things could be done better, let me know. It will take some time to get used to, but I personally like it. I just hope it won't make too many URLs pointing to other topics invalid.

deejsasqui wrote:

Addendum: I think the current structure is too cluttered. I don't know if we want to simplify the structure now, but I think it'll only get harder as time goes on. As I see it, we could have:

- About
- DiscographyDB
SC:
1. Main (Discussion closed to non-SC members, open for all to view)
2. Public (all open)
3. Subcommittees (topics must have [VIS], [TECH], [BFL] prefix) (Discussion closed to non-SC subcommittee members, open for all to view)
General:
0. Wiki
1. Human elements
- 1. Our skills
- 3. Ownership, decision-making, hierarchy, minus legal status
2. Company/Foundation organization
- 2. Name, domain, hosting
- 4. Finance: income, sponsorship, marketplace, plus legal status
3. Database form and function
- 5. Technical: database format and structure
- 6. Submission process, who can submit, sub limits, needed votes
- 7. Release submission form
- 8. Submission guidelines, allowed data
- 9. Display options, page modelling
- 10. Search function
11. Other
- Discogs
- Chat

Due to the different levels of Technical detail and know-how required at certain steps, I could see keeping most of the Database form and function sections by them selves under the DFF header, but I think the others can be folded back into one forum.

I'm not so sure about this... it looks to much of a change at once. If there's enough support from the community I'll change it, but I think the current structure is good enough.

I got in quite quick with my initail remarks while those green borders were still in place, looks better now.
I previously thought that the Discogs header should be last (as in some way we should be putting that behind us ).However now seeing it Discogs second from last draws less attention which in my opinion is a plus.
Again, nice work, subtle and well layed out, thanks.

dmaxx - I rather like the current layout, thanks!

dmaxx wrote:

I'm not so sure about this... it looks to much of a change at once. If there's enough support from the community I'll change it, but I think the current structure is good enough.

OK - I was thinking I'd try to do some major work with the wiki, possibly copying the content into the format I proposed, to see how it all fits together, but I'll see when I have time for that undertaking (I'd like to give it a few hours at once, instead of 20 minutes here and there).

Looks nice, although it indeed takes some time to get used too.

About the setup of deejsasqui: I think 1.3 and 2.4 are too much interrelated, especially on the part of the legal status.