Poll: Should LF Forum stay with Photo.net?

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by _____|133, Jun 15, 2002.

  1. Hi gang,

    In the interest of resolving this issue, let us take a poll again.

    Should LF Forum stay with Photo.net?

    Yes? No? Don't care?

    Your voices will help in deciding the future of this forum. So vote
    responsibly and once.
     
  2. A poll at this point is pretty meaningless and basically a waste of time, as most members of the LF Forum do not appear to be participating in it, as it now exists on photonet at present.

    I suggest we use the bandwith for something else...
     
  3. Only if Tuan and his volunteers conclude that's the best option. Should they find us a better home, "No."
     
  4. We already voted. See

    http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/lf-photonet.html
     
  5. If it is possible the LF forum should be placed on an independent, non-commercial server. It is obvious that most of the original posters from the LF forum no longer participate here!

    The original LF forum was incredible! Hopefully, it will be possible to revive it again!
     
  6. NO: The moderator removed an answer that I had posted on the old LF forum.
     
  7. Eric, thanks for your concern about this forum. We had the vote before we came here. Sorry you missed it. The answer was no.

    Eric, do we know you from another name at our old home? You dont show up in the archives before we moved here. It seems like you are just trying to cause trouble. Oh wait, I just found you. You "voted" to move here as Eric XX@xx.com in December 2001. I presume thats you anyway, hard to tell with that address.

    To Brian re "the vote". Look at the "future of this forum" thread from 2000. Thats what I was referring to. The vast majority of respondents said no to photo.net, around 17 to 5 or 6 depending on how you count some less than clear replies. I found it interesting that suddenly more people (including Ericxx) "voted" for photo.net in the more recent thread you looked at, but I didnt even "vote" at that time because I didnt see Tuan's message as a call for votes. The vote had been done a year before that. He even referred to the photo.net issues, referring to the thread where a vote HAD been asked for, the results given above! As far as I was concerned, the photo.net option had already been voted down as a "preferred" option, though most agreed it was better than no forum at all. Here we are, with the less preferred option, certainly better than none at all, with some fine folks working hard to get the preferred option up and running.
     
  8. I vote we stay. If we move and something goes haywire two years from now or six months from now, we are really doomed. All it would take is somebody moving, somebody losing interest, somebody not paying a bill. Having read Greenspun's book on web publishing and much of his on-line material, I am confident that photo.net is (a) here to stay, and (b) not going to turn into something as deliberately malevolent as some people seem to fear. I admit the whole thing could be sold to www.megabucks.com some day, just like anything else. If that happens, we can move then. Right now the site looks pretty much the way it did back in the LUSENET days and I am happy to have it and grateful for Greenspun's insight some years ago in putting together LUSENET and his willingness to haul it over here rather than simply pull the plug. I am especially grateful to the photo.net volunteers who seem to have spent a lot of time transfering over the archives.

    If Tuan sees a good opportunity elsewhere, then I would certainly support whatever he decides to do; after all, he is operating with a lot more information than I am. But right now, this looks like a pretty comfy place to be.

    Greenspun's whole attitude is open-source, minimum fuss, and maximum information flow. I say we stick with him.
     
  9. My humble opinion is that we should wait a while....

    Change comes very difficult for some individuals, probably with
    the time the other fellows will join up.
     
  10. > Greenspun's whole attitude is open-source, minimum fuss, and >maximum information flow. I say we stick with him

    Maybe I read it wrong, but I didn't think Phillip Greenspun had much to do with Photo.net anymore?

    tim
     
  11. Yes, I vote we stay, at least for now.

    I would guess the vote won't be exactly the same as it was last year,
    when people feared coming to photo.net would mean flashing banner ads
    and thousands of dumb questions from beginners and the like.

    So it doesn't hurt to take another poll, assuming everyone can be
    civil and not hostile about it.
     
  12. Tim: I think Phil G has left.

    I'm a photo.netter. Welcome to you all. I just flicked the LF forum on tonight - but I, like many others from PN wont look at it or participate in regularly as it isn't of my interest - if it were, I would have found it before now. Photo.net is a great community, non-commercial, and has a good atmosphere. Most of us are 35mm users, some use MF - but very few seem to be LF users, so I don't think you'll see much of the lunatic fringe moving into to mess your forum up. Ok, so we have bust ups sometimes - a 'civil war' a few months back caused a lot of bad feeling, but why not just wait and see?

    BTW - i'm nothing to do with the elves or anything - just a happy user.
     
  13. No! I dislike having to remember, then use my password each time I want to enter into the discussion. I loose my chain of thought. I guess that's why it's called a "senior moment".
     
  14. If Quang-Tuan Luong - the moderator of the forum - feels it is appropriate to take another poll then I'll vote again. I'm not convinced that it is helpful for members of the forum to initiate 'unofficial' polls.

    I assume that the original poll resolved the issue - the present situation is either consistent with the result of that poll, or it is only temporary, or it may be that we will stay here because no adequate alternative can be arranged. Whichever is the case, the moderator and those actively involved with him in the process of sorting things out will have my backing for whatever they feel is both appropriate and possible.

    For myself, as a relative beginner in LF I would have to say that this is the first forum that I have participated in where I feel that I have taken out of the forum much, much more than I have contributed. As a result I will simply be grateful if it continues in roughly its current form, wherever that may happen to be. I have a personal preference for that, but I have already stated it in Tuan's poll, and I don't see a need to do so again.
     
  15. While it's possible that Lusenet was originally offered out of inspiration, I wonder if the events of the past few weeks were preordained from the beginning. Consider the progression: a "free" forum service is offered, many people put their hard work and efforts into making forums using those service successful, and then they are assimilated. How convenient for photo.net.

    I would like to see the large format forum back in it's original location. Having the forum side-by-side with the excellent information currently located at Mr. Luong's site is a natural combination. I would much prefer to see the LF forum guided in the future by someone of Mr. Luong's thoughtfulness and integrity, versus the self-serving motivations recently demonstrated by its new host.

    I vote no.
     
  16. My apologies to Eric for the sarcastic tone of my post, which isnt going to help things any, and for misrepresenting his earlier "vote" which was a "yes" to come here albeit after the first vote was already taken the year prior.
     
  17. Hi everyone
    We are here now. So, lets use it as we did the old. We can only advance if we talk to each other. We can only learn if we help each other. WE ARE HERE NOW - SO TALK, READ, WRITE, LEARN & ENJOY.
    Bob.
     
  18. Yes and No!

    Its a desicion wich Tuan have to make, not Erik X or mister Y!
     
  19. Wayne, no offence taken mate. Don't worry about it. Just don't read too much into my 'nefarious' intentions.

    I am sorry I did not make it clear. Regardless of how the poll turns out, it is ultimately Dr Quang Tuan Luong's decision to move it or stay. I thought it would be helpful to him to know how the reaadership feels about this at this juncture in time. It is not my intent to wrest any authority away from him.

    If you go back to the archives, Dr Quang was for porting over to photo.net if an alternative was not found by the beginning of summer.

    He may feel differently about it now. So if you decide not to vote, it is okay. Just don't try to hijack the process.

    I cannot be sure whether to shift it or to tilt it? Front standard or rear standard? Swing? Raise it or let it fall? 4x5 or 8x10? Decisions, decisions. Comes with the LF territory, I suppose.
     
  20. can't tell much difference. there must be cookie that remembers my password so that is not a problem.
     
  21. NO. Move it. Signing in, in a pain in the posterior.
     
  22. John, yes there is a cookie, if you enable it. You only have to login once on each system that you use, if that is what you want.
     
  23. Tito feels that "the moderator" removed an answer from
    a thread on the old system. I'd like to respond to that.

    (a) We only moved the threads from LUSENET up to June 2. After
    a few more days, the LUSENET administrator turned off "New Questions"
    in the forum there, but replies to questions continue until yesterday, when the forum started to be redirected here. We were
    planning on moving the messages posted from June 2 until yesterday. Perhaps Tito's "deleted" message is one of those, and it will show up here.

    (b) So far as I am concerned, QTL is moderting the forum. During the first two days, I moderated it and I deleted two messages from Tribblett, which were insulting another photo.net member (specifically, me). Those are the only messages that I know of which have been deleted unless QTL has been deleting messages.
     
  24. Stay at least for a while, because that's what everybodies going to do anyway, and in addition to a vote, come up with a list of what you want, submit it to Brian, and see what he will and won't do.

    The moderator had six months thereabouts to be decisive before this came about, so what and who is different in the mix, where it's going to be worked out now? It didn't happen then, how is it going to happen now?

    Come up with a list of what everybody wants, and the let Brian state what he can and will/will not do, instead of crying about where the 'old gang' went. I don't care what you do, YOU CANNOT GO BACK TO THE PAST, even with a move from Photo net. which a lot of you want, it won't be back like it used to, that's life.

    I'll start the requests.....Brian what about the cookies you have to let into you box....how can we do something about that? Every time I let cookies into my box, I get another 10 spams everyday, what can you do?
     
  25. wayne, if you read through that read you will find that you did "vote": at least I interpreted your cheering on Josh Wand's efforts as a NO vote; so when I counted 29 YES, 19 NO, you are in the NO's. Some of the votes were judgement calls since people didn't make their positions clear. Going through it again, I could have called one or two of the "non-votes" incorrectly. It might have been 29 to 20 (or maybe 21).

    The earlier July 2000 vote is irrelevant because at that point the question was: "Do we stay on LUSENET or moved to photo.net". By the far the majority of people wanted to stay on LUSENET, which was not at that point planned to disappear.
     
  26. I just would like to see this forum be wherever everybody is
    active again like things were before the move. Whether that
    means just getting used to things here or moving to a different
    home again, I don't know.
     
  27. Yes. It seems to me to be working well, what's the problem? You don't have to remember a password and log in every time. The first time you joined after it moved to photo.net, when you were asked for an e mail address and password, there was also a question asking if you wanted that information saved so that you didn't have to provide it every time. If you answer that question "yes," then all you have to do is book mark the site and click on it when you want to get in. You won't have to type your e mail address and password every time. But more importantly, I didn't think it was up to the people who participate to decide where it goes, I thought that was up to Tuan since he's the one who has started it and has handled it from the beginnning (at least I thought he was).
     
  28. The earlier July 2000 vote is irrelevant


    ---------


    I dont think it was irrelevant at all. Q-Tuan states ( in his recent personal statement, referring to the thread where you tallied "the votes", as you call them) (!) " This was not meant to be a vote, since one had been conducted a year and half ago..."

    There might have been another vote taken by Tuan back then (theres a broken link in one of those threads, which seems to point to a poll), in addition to the July 2000 "vote" I referred to. Tuan did not initiate that July thread, but whichever one we refer to, except the one last December which was not intended to be a vote, the results were the same.


    Anyway I dont want to keep flogging this dog forever, I just think the vote issue was settled long ago, and if someone can override that its got to be Q-Tuan. I also will reiterate that if we are going to go elsewhere, we need to do it very quickly before the "community" we want to preserve disintegrates.
     
  29. wayne, QTL should chime in and say where the "year and half ago" poll is, so we can all look at it. In the later December 2001 thread, he points back to a July 2000 thread (a year and half before) which is a vote on "should we stay on LUSENET or move to photo.net?" The outcome of this was clearly "stay". By December 2001, staying was not an option, and the question posed this time by QTL was, "should we move to photo.net, or should we move to an alternative like yahoo?" That thread was much longer than the previous one, and the outcome, if you would like to check, is clearly in favor of photo.net. I think even a lot of the people who favored "alternatives" mentioned that photo.net would be OK or said that it would be there second choice.

    We can have another vote here, as long as Erik has started this thread, but I'm afraid that the results will be inconclusive. There seems to be a very vocal anti-photo.net group, and they seem to be the ones interested in these discussions. A lot of the other posters are just participating in discussions of LF photography. I'm not sure what a vote in this thread against photo.net would mean, and if it goes in favor of photo.net, it won't silence the opponents since they will only say the vote was rigged or the rest of the opponents are refusing to log into photo.net.
     
  30. I should add that the photo.net decision-makers have been trying to have a meaningful sounding of opinion on this issue, and if we can come up with a way that will have representative input and not be subject to the charge of being rigged, we will conduct one and abide by the results.

    And if we can't come up with a meaningful way to get input, the nay-sayers may get their way. Because, quite frankly, we're getting fed up with the amount of time this forum is taking and its starting to look like more trouble than its worth.
     
  31. The one thing I did occasionaly miss in the old Lusenet, and now at photo.net is a plonk filter... to be fair, it is not ofen needed here due to the generally high quality of posts, but just *occasionaly* I do miss it...

    Perhaps the guys writing the new software could incorporate one?

    Cheers,
     
  32. IF the old LF Forum could have been maintained I for one would have preffered that. But it of course isn't and we are the benificiaries of Photo.net and Brian's hard work to keep A site available and I vote stay. Photo.net can get a little uncivil on the unmoderated forum but I think if you look back at say MF forum you will find a different attitude that is more what we can expect.

    I don't really worry about the site being sold to Megabucks.com, but then again I have never been able to contribute much of value that anyone would want. I certainly have benifited from the vast knowledge of many contributors and hope they will continue.

    Bob
     
  33. even if we wanted to move to a different site, that was not full of
    advertising, and the owner of your words after they are typed, it
    isn't going to happen. it has been a week or 2?? that isn't
    nearly enough time to really know what to expect, and what will or
    will not become of this forum.
    i think we should just stay here and enjoy the ride for a while.
     
  34. 'And if we can't come up with a meaningful way to get input, the nay-sayers may get their way. Because, quite frankly, we're getting fed up with the
    amount of time this forum is taking and its starting to look like more trouble than its worth'...............Brian,.....loosen up,...there are plenty of threads that say give this a chance, the LF forum was/is great because of who participates, it's called the LF forum, not the 'Q.T. Luong private forum', not the 'only the folks who shoot landscapes forum', it is the property of everybody who participates, you can have a moderator, but he doesn't own it, WE DO!

    Brian....and to anybody else, some folks are not going to participate, what else is there to say, I don't think you should be working up a mad because of who is going away, I would like to see participation, so in the spirit of that, if you are fed up with the accusations, stop responding to them.

    My ex-wife talks a lot of *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* about me, do you know how long I take to consider those comments while I'm in the arms of my present wife?

    The Photo-net. however things ended up here, is the reality, 'couddaa, woudddaaa, shouddddaa' doesn't mean anything, it's venting frustration, lamenting the past, righteous indignation over how the last six months were wasted, it doesn't really have anything to do with you, unless you prove them right.

    Being on task for everybody would be to COME UP WITH A LIST OF SPECIFIC, NEEDS AND ASSURANCES, with Brian going down the list WITH Q.T. Luoung TOGETHER instead of INDIVIDUAL SNIPING. Q.T.Luong, to be honest, I don't like how you moderate, because I don't beleive you are decisive, BE DECISIVE NOW, GET ON THE HOT SPOT WITH BRIAN AND THE TWO OF YOU ANSWER, SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND WORK THIS OUT.


    There is going to be no alternative to this forum on photo-net for quite some time anyways, so we have no choice, MAKE THIS PLACE IN TO WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE, with Q.T. LUOUNG and BRIAN working this out TOGETHER.
     
  35. "A lot of the other posters are just participating in discussions of LF photography."

    They are wise and I am not. I plan on doing just that.
     
  36. Here's some interesting data. The last three days the number of postings in this forum, on photo.net have been: Thursday 151, Friday 102, Saturday (so far) 111.

    This is considerably higher than the average daily submission rate for the past two months. In fact, Thursday's total of 151 is the third highest of the year so far. Even if a lot of these were "What should happen with this forum?" discussions, it is still pretty encouraging. After a few initial slow days, the forum may have caught up and even be surpassing the former activity level, although three days is perhaps a bit too soon to tell. When some of the folks who haven't made it here yet slope on over, we might start setting some records.
     
  37. > My ex-wife talks a lot of *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* about me, do you know how long I take to consider those comments while I'm in the arms of my present wife?

    Amen, Amen. how about everyone pushing their keyboards aside, taking a deep breath, unglue your fstops from f64, and do some LF (you supply the acronym equality) photography. heck, I live in Cannon Beach, one of the most photographed coastlines in the world, and there must be a perspective of Haystack Rock and sunset that hasn't been captured. be nice ... and you can stay at my beach house.

    peace
     
  38. I have several reactions to this poll.

    A request for views was already conducted, starting on 2002 Dec 5: "THE FUTURE OF THIS FORUM - PLEASE READ", asked by Quang-Tuan Luong:
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0036RK. Skimming the responses, the preferences were for a independent server and software to replicate the greenspun.com site, or for photo.net. The first didn't happen, even in six months. A lot of the responders were for photo.net as their first or second choice. It seems to me that most of the LF Forum community finds photo.net acceptable.

    I fear that this poll won't accurately measure the views of the community. If there is to be a poll, it would be better if the questions were asked either by Quang-Tuan Luong or by Photo.Net, or even better by both. With an unofficial poll, members of the community aren't sure whether they should respond. I nearly didn't. Given that a move had to occur, it may be that a silent majority supports the move to photo.net.

    I don't think that the current poll makes sense unless viable choices are listed. The issue can't simply be yes/no to photo.net for the LF, but rather photo.net or X or Y or Z. The choices should be options that actually exist, not: "something just like what we had would be nice".

    My fear is that this furor about the move to photo.net will damage the
    community. In the worst case the community might split into three groups, some participating at photo.net, others somewhere else, and some leaving the community. Let's not let a hypothetical better situation be the enemy of a good situation (photo.net)--let's try out the new home. If people are still dissatisfied in a month, I suggest that they request Q.T. Luong to post an "official" poll. We need to give some time for problems with the transition to be fixed (like recovering the missing posts from June 2 to 14) and just time to try it out.

    There seem to be a few people adamantly opposed to photo.net. Others have a few objections. I second Jonathan Brewer's suggestion that the latter make specific and concrete suggestions.

    My vote is to stay. I think photo.net is a good site, and if we go back to discussing LF photography will be a better one.
     
  39. The reason that not as many people are posting, at least on the forums that I moderate, is that the alerts have not been migrated yet. I didn't realize how many people relied on the alerts to keep up with what is going on .
     
  40. Two problems I come across here that weren't as bad at Lusenet. This forum is hard to find. It is not evident that we are here at all when you enter PN. And PN isn't always up and running. Many times I try to enter PN and I am unable to enter. I personally liked the old lusenet system but that is a non issue I guess. I would like to see this forum in plain view as soon as you enter PN so others looking for us can find us. There seems to be a lot of paranoia about being exposed to the general public. I don't think it is that big a problem compared to being readily visible to new LF users or those LF users that haven't run across us yet. The old gang knows that we have moved here but if I were new to LF I would not know that this forum existed just by drifting into PN. I have sent people to PN telling them what a wonderful resource this LF forum is and they come back and ask me where it is. Must be some way of being more visible.
     
  41. Being a relative newcomer to the forum, before the move to
    photo.net, I truly enjoyed myself there as I do here. As has been
    posted, let's stay here for a while, talk about LF and be glad that
    the site exists at all.. I'm sure we're resourceful enough to come
    up with good alternatives if the need truly arises.
     
  42. I have been participating in the large format forum before and since the change, also i have participated in the hasselblad forum on photonet. What will eventually drive me away is the cumbersome and slow response in the photonet forums. I have on several occassions tried to post comprehensive responses in the last two weeks on both forums and at th time I hit Confrim the message was lost, I was frustrated and gave up. This is a consistent problem with photonet together with the aggravation way the drop down tollbar always drops down and screws up the screen and the ability to make choices.

    So I vote we move to a convient and substantial board, look at the other parts of the photonet boards and you will see that the boards eventually go very quiet and become dumded down. The frustration of trying to post and then loosing the post and then the slow response time and the censoring by the moderator will eventually kill this forum as well. The other large format post list on photonet is now nothing more thatn a buy an sell listing and is a true waste of time. I predict that thsi will be the future of this forum .
    This forum has been unique adn very valuable in the promulgation ofthe old ways and new approaches to film.
    The ease and reliability of posting and a high quality of posting will lead to sucess. Just look at some of the request messages placed in the last week and see the lack of responses. The forum is already in atrophy.
     
  43. Jonathan Brewer thinks Tuan doesn't censor enough and Edward Burlew complains that Tuan censors too much. Erik X. observes that being a photo.net volunteer is tough - - I think Tuan's job is just as thankless.
     
  44. Edward,

    the forum is what we, the participants, bring to it. bring nothing, get nothing. enjoy large-format photography and want to express and share this passion? contribute, enlighten, absorb.

    another key is to not post anything you don't consciously want to offer to the world free of charge and encumbrance. you apparently have some technical issues unique to your enviroment, as posting and cookie-served logins seem to work fine.
     
  45. I will leave the decision up to Tuan, it is his forum. I do wish the damnable sign in dance would go away though. Having the post go straight in without the sign in and double clicking stuff was a lot nicer & kept the thought process on track better when formulating thoughts for a post or answer.
    Then we have the moderator/censor question with photo.net. Too much gets cut at times. With LF it is more a case of lack of knowledge if we go with this type of 'moderation'. Will those who occasionally review posts still be the same LF guys or will it be the photo.net guys who are not as familiar with LF concerns & then censor posts with valid questions while they may not sound right for the 35mm crowd? (Yes, I shoot a lot of 35mm also)
    Then we have the real problem of sticking ones head in the sand when it comes to even putting up the name of a major auction forum..E-Buy. Put that in and see what happens. Take away the censorship and make what has been a good forum a lot better. Many of us buy or sell there as we have found it is a heck of a lot better than the photo.net classifieds. So let us post the name & not worry about it.

    I think Phil Greenspun has done the whole photo community a great service with his page and applaud his efforts. I liked the LF forum as it was. Good information & discussions that at times were worth reading even if you had no interest in the topic. Lets keep that & see if we can tweak some of the gripes so this forum is one a lot more people like to visit.
     
  46. Dan, since you've been on photo.net long enough to make 2400+ postings (which must be a record!) and get the hero icon, I'm surprised that you don't know that you don't have to sign in every time. You don't have to keep signing in if you check the box at the bottom of the login form. This will keep you logged in, at least on that system, until you click "Logout".

    Also the moderation policy in each forum is decided by the moderators of the forum, meaning that QTL will decide what gets edited and deleted.
     
  47. Oh, and concerning the prohibition of the "Ebay" word -- that is also a per-forum decision, and QTL can allow (or disallow) that here if he wants. As you see, there is no problem to use it in this forum.
     
  48. 'Let's not let a hypothetical better situation be the enemy
    of a good situation (photo.net)--let's try out the new home.'.......................I luv dat!...........Don't mistreat the woman you wake up to for the dreamgirl you chase around in your sleep.
     
  49. "because I don't beleive you are decisive, BE DECISIVE NOW, GET ON THE
    HOT SPOT ..."

    Don't expect decisiveness from Large Format Photographers or the LF list.

    Large Format Photographers eschew the "Decisive Moment" as mere surface fluff. We much prefer the extended quote from appearance and time....

    Why do you think our shutter speeds are always so slow and we are always worrying about reciprocity failure! We travel at a slower pace.
     
  50. Just a suggestion that if it doesn't work out, and I don't really see why, we can always charge a $20 yearly membership fee for posting to this forum, but allow others to read for free. I personally like the search engine at photonet and the same setup we had.
     
  51. ...I have on several occassions tried to post comprehensive responses in the last two weeks on both forums and at th time I hit Confrim the message was lost, I was frustrated and gave up. This is a consistent problem with photonet...
    That's a consistant problem with your browser, not PN. Either upgrade or do as I used to do, make it a habit to copy your text to clipboard before submitting so that you can paste it back if you need to edit.
    ...together with the aggravation way the drop down tollbar always drops down and screws up the screen and the ability to make choices.
    Again, that is a problem with your browser. If you click on "My Workspace" at the top of the page you can click on "Turn Pull-Down menus On or Off" on the right. Each time you log in after that you won't have that menu problem.
     
  52. Erik, thanks for your concern, but I don't think it is
    up to a person whom I don't remember making a single posting
    to the LF forum to initiate such things. It would also
    help if you re-read carefully the link that I posted
    about the history of the LF Forum. Last, if I feel that a
    poll is again needed, I will initiate one by emailing
    personally each of the several hundred active participants
    of the former LF forum in order to gather a significant
    amount of votes.
     
  53. Erik has posted plenty on the LF forum, so your memory is a little off if that's who you're talking about, but what difference does it make how many times he posted, if he comes up with a good idea or any of us for that matter, are you willing to consider it?

    What is sending out several hundred e-mails, and waiting for several hundred back for a poll going to do? There is polarization, suspicion, and confusion going on right now.

    Instead of waiting for 300 e-mails why don't you tell everybody what you feel, tell everybody what you feel in your gut about this move and whether you want it to work or not. What's wrong with getting together with Brian, and if you two want the max participation with this since right now there is Nothing else, to just come out and say so?

    A bunch of people say they will do what you want to do, say what you want them to do. I don't get along with you, but that isn't the point, who likes who, your dislikes, whatever, the only thing that counts is that when I good idea comes along regardless of whether it comes from one your friends or enemies, are you man enough to consider because it's a good idea.

    Are you willing to consider anything from any source as long as it happens to be a good idea? I think it's a good idea for not just Brian but you to answer the concerns of these folks, how you feel about them.

    IT doesn't make any difference whether you remember Erik or not, the only thing that matters is does he make sense, does he or anybody else have anything you can use to clarify and/or smooth this situation over. What about a list of grievances, scrutinized by you and Brian with a timely response, what about letting everybody know how you feel about the recent responses and whether they should/should not give photo net a chance, then why not say something.

    And now I'm through with this issue, one way or another.
     
  54. Thanks JB.

    Since QTL addressed it directly to me, I feel that I should attempt to respond.

    I don't blame you for not remembering me, QTL, because I have always used a moniker 'X' until recently. Shame on me I guess; I have valid reasons for not revealing my identity and that's no crime. Let's not be naive; on the WWW, nobody really knows who one is really is.

    I cannot say that I have made many postings (which is not the same as saying I made none) to the LF Forum. I have not made many because there was simply not much that I could add which had not been better said by my betters. I could not just say, "I concur" just to clutter up the forum. As Dr Greenspun said, this is NOT a $600 000 chat-room.
    I have tried to respect that as much as I could. In fact, I learnt more from keeping my mouth shut and merely reading. As your forum is public and not private, you would not be aware of my lurking here.

    If you mean to imply that I have simply popped up from nowhere, you are wrong on that count. I have been following the LF Forum since its inception in 1998.

    However, as it has been wrongly implied in the past, it is not whether I choose to hide behind a pseudonym or hotmail account or the number of postings I make that my words hold no substance but whether I make sense in my postings.

    I initiated a straw poll with no disrespect to you. I had hoped that you may use it as a rough gauge to inform your decision on either staying or moving. It does not help that accusations are flying at photo.net while no headway seems to be made on this urgent issue. Personally, I feel that there is scape-goatism and bruised ego at play here which led to this flurry of heated exchanges.

    Of course, I wish you well in making an official poll since you are the moderator and owner of this forum. And in the interest of clearing up the air, I wish that you'd do it quickly. After dragging your feet for the last six months, I hope that action will be taken now. I am sorry for that stance; as an ex-soldier, waffling means getting shot and certain death.

    I have read your history of the LF Forum and pardon me for saying this: I feel that you are not giving the complete picture. It is, uh, a biased account. I am also fully aware of the setting up of Lusenet; we all chose to start up forums there knowing full well the intent behind it. Phil did not attempt to hide the facts from anyone. It was well-known from day one what Lusenet was all about. Phil did not point a gun at anyone's head to start a forum there. It was done voluntarily. We are all adults so let us be responsible for our own actions.

    The crux of the matter is this: you dragged your feet, your forum was moved in a last-ditch effort to preserve it before it is wiped out forever, you are feeling unhappy that you had not been asked, and now it is turning into a photo.net moved us forcibly for its own self-interest thingie. I don't buy that.

    It matters not a whit whether LF Forum remains here or not. It is your forum. But I recognise scape-goatism when I see it and I am calling it that. This will rankle. If it takes fisticuffs to bring resolution to this matter, so be it.

    QTL, you are fully cognisant of the opinion poll done in July 2000 and Dec 2001. You even said that you were for the move to photo.net if a suitable home was not found by the beginning of Summer(2002).

    A life-line was thrown to you out of the goodwill of photo.net and now that the forum is safe and breathing, you are saying that you did not ask to be saved (forcibly) but be given more time to think it over in a sinking boat?

    So I beg you sir, for the sake of our suffering friends at photo.net, make your decision now or hold your peace until you find a new home.

    Remember that it is considered impolite to criticise the host while he is putting you up.

    PS Thanx for starting the LF Forum. I mean that sincerely. And thanx to all contributors who made your LF Forum successful.

     
  55. Atherton not included.
     
  56. As a point of clarification, QTL is the moderator of this forum, but he is not the "owner" of it. The contributors "own" the content; the community "owns" itself; and first Philip Greenspun and now photo.net own the "meeting place", the online infrastructure for the forum.

    QTL deserves deference as the person who initiated the forum on LUSENET and the person who has spent significant time moderating it. But many other people have made significant contributions. Many people, in varying degrees, "own" the forum.
     
  57. butt out brian... permanently.



    and quit editing posts, that's fer emperor QTL.
     
  58. I think part of the objection was that we were only told that LUSENET was going to go away, not when. It does little good to say that some day something is going to happen. Some day we are all going to die, but I'm certainly going to choose my activities differently if it's tomorrow versus 50 years from now (there's no guarantees, but you get my point). Then, a day before it moved we were told when. Even a week's notice on the drop-dead date could have given us (I use the word "us" loosely, I'm just testing) enough time to finish up the code.

    Brian -- you clearly know IT. You should also know that a coding project is never done. Every developer will always take right up until the very last second, fixing and tweaking things, adding features. Josh had made great progress on a LUSENET substitute, and with a little warning we could have migrated.

    Erik -- you are completely right that to a certain extent the ball was dropped. But, I also think it was dropped on BOTH sides. I think that better communication from photo.net would have helped.

    At this point I feel we've lost a very valuable resource. Some key contributors have disappeared and a tremendous amount of bickering and noise has filled that void.
    Anyway, I just felt the need to share my two cents. There's two sides to every story and the truth is generally somewhere in the middle. (My late-night attempts at words of wisdom.)


    -Jen
     
  59. Jennifer, when Philip told the moderators that LUSENET was "going away", the sense of the message was that it was imminent. There had already been several warnings before that.

    Even in 2000, when QTL and the photo.net staff were negotiating about moving the forum to photo.net, the eventual end of LUSENET was foreseen, even though it was not imminent at that point. The members wanted to stay, according to a poll, and photo.net and QTL couldn't agree on how much QTL would be paid and the terms under which he would continue to control or own the forum; so those discussions broke down.

    The reason the December 2001 two minute warning turned into six months was that the migration had to be done by volunteers, and it was difficult to find people to do it. There were several previous attempts, the first in February or March. They failed because the people underestimated the work or skill level involved and ran out of time. Philip perhaps did not appreciate the fact that these delays had made it advisable to give another two minute warning.

    I read through the December 2001 poll and knew that several people were volunteering things towards an independent server. But I must confess that I lumped them all in with Andre's offer to run it from his apartment in LA, and didn't take them seriously, especially since there were no subsequent discussion in the forum of these efforts, like asking for testers, etc.

    In any case a considerable majority of the contributors favored moving to photo.net, with the minority being divided between various alternatives, and with many of the minority favoring photo.net as second choice. So we also didn't think the independent server route was what the community as a whole wanted. However, it would appear that QTL favors it, having developed an aversion since the 2000 discussions to photo.net as a "commercial" operation. And that seems to be the deciding factor in this forum.
     
  60. Yes .
     
  61. Brian, if your intention is just to lend an helping hand
    to this community, why do you feel the need to try so hard
    to convince everybody, and in the process lower yourself to
    making personal allegations such as the one you just posted ?
    <p>
    For the record, when I was approached by photo.net in
    the waning days of the dot-com boom, they asked me what
    I would want for working for them. I saw this as a part-time
    employment opportunities, and emailed back my requirements.
    I assumed they were a well-funded dotcom.
    Subsequently, we had a conference call in which I learned
    there were no salaries available. As I mention in my essay,
    this is when I initiated the poll (results are on "old polls"
    on the LF page). Seeing the direction on which photo.net was
    headed made me chose the non-commercial way.
    <p>
    Brian wants you to believe that I have an axe to grind with
    photo.net, but this is again just not true. I have participated
    actively in the discussions, and uploaded a number of images.
    I have written in
    2001 a long feature article for photo.net. How many photo.net
    members can say that ? I went to great length to buy from
    the photo.net affiliates, even if that meant giving up on
    the convenience of my usual suppliers. When I had the impression
    that one of those transactions didn't register properly, I
    alerted Rajeev so he could check. Does that sound to you
    like the behavior of a disgrunted person ?
    <p>
    I was not even THAT opposed to a LF move to photo.net. There
    were plenty of opportunities to move to another system that
    I could have taken if it was more important for me to
    prevent the forum from being taken over by photo.net rather
    than seeing it served with a good infrastructure. As Erik
    (to whom I apologize for the tone in my post)
    has pointed out to rightly, I was envisioning a move to
    photo.net by this summer if no alternative were found.
    <p>
    Even as the move proceeded, and despite the way it was
    handled, I was still willing to cooperate with photo.net
    enough that I asked the community to go there for now and
    possibly stay. My main
    concern was to avoid a split which would loose members along
    the way. However, the nature or tone of Brian's replies in
    this forum and in email has convinced me that I should have
    much more forceful in opposing the move.
    <p>
    What's planned ? We will go forward with setting up a new
    site. Once it's running, we will conduct a poll. Currently
    you'd just be voting between photo.net and an hypothetical
    alternative. It is my hope that when the members of this
    community who are currently on photo.net see that the
    alternative is real, they will decide
    to go there, and that those who have dropped during the
    migration will rejoin.
    <p> The new site will be non-profit, non-commercial. To
    put to rest any thought that it could be self-serving
    in some obscure ways,
    when the situation is stabilized
    again, I intend to retire from being the main moderator.
     
  62. If the tone of the recent postings in this thread are an indicator of
    the future of the LF forum at photo.net, my response is a
    resounding NO! to the question of the forum remaining at this
    site. In the old LUSENET forum, there were several amateurs
    who participated, but rarely did we see amateurish postings.

    In addition to the reservations expressed by others, I also find
    the incessant postings by the moderator to be intrusive. It is not
    the job of a forum moderator to steer the course of a topic in a
    direction that may be beneficial to ones own interests. While I
    appreciate the home (possibly temporary) that has been
    provided to the LF forum, if the wishes of the forum participants
    are to move to an independent site, then these people should be
    able to discuss the matter freely without being directed by those
    who maintain this site.
     
  63. Dr Luong Quang-Tuan,

    I apologise to you unreservedly for my own intemperate tone and comments towards you. I got carried away.

    Let us try to make amends. This issue has served to divide the community and it is our loss if members get up and leave.

    Dr Luong, know that your efforts are appreciated and if you should move the LF Forum to another location someday, I wish you bountiful success with it.

    It seems as if the LF Forum is chugging away merrily along under its own steam; most members do not seem to be bothered by this issue and are using the forum just like in the old Lusenet days. We, the minority, have been very vocal and voluble on both sides of the issue.

    Whatever your decision, Dr Luong, I wish you well. It is time to bury the hatchet and get back to making pictures.
     
  64. Just because people are continuing to contribute should not be taken to mean that the authors are all happy with the status quo.

    I have added my tuppence worth in a couple of threads but am increasingly unhappy about the way the forum is going. I started out fairly happy, with only a few reservations re' the (non)privacy policy and the way the move was undertaken. I have become less sanguine after reading Brian's and a few others comments - not to mention the bad manners and aggression that have appeared already in other, less contentious threads (I exclude this thread from censure as I guess a few intemperate comments are to be expected given the strength of feeling on both "sides").
     

Share This Page