Codex tools: Log in
[17:07] <relle> <meetup>
[17:07] <relle> what's up first.
[17:07] <relle> Podz? Copyright?
[17:07] <Podz> without matt, can that be decided upon ?
[17:08] <Podz> I think the FSF should take control though - right now it's nowhere
[17:08] <relle> information can be given, he can read it later? Our opinions "might" matter.
[17:08] <relle> Tell us about FSF.
[17:08] <mikelittle> Has anyone asked whether FSF they are interested?
[17:08] <skippy> FSF == Free Software Foundation, current maintainers of the GPL.
[17:08] <skippy> no, I've not asked them.
[17:09] <Podz> instead, how about i say that right now, codex has zero protection. WP has neither the time or expertise or resoucres
[17:09] <relle> What does that mean "maintainers"?
[17:09] <Podz> where's that from ?
[17:10] <skippy> it's my lack of a better word for the folks ultimately responsible for the GPL.
[17:10] <mikelittle> A long time ago there was a big problem with a fork of emacs. Xemacs. They (FSF) couldn't take the code from the fork because too much of it was unattributed. I think the codex is nearly in a similar state.
[17:10] <skippy> http://fsf.org/
[17:11] <mikelittle> By which I mean you need a legal copyright owner in order to apply and enforce the GPL
[17:11] <Podz> I nwould like to see action before some event when we wish we HAD taken action.
[17:11] <Podz> and it's not like it'll cost lots is it ?
[17:12] <mikelittle> Remember that international law says the act of creation automatically means the creator has copyright even if they don't state it.
[17:12] <Podz> I just don't see any obstacles to pursuing this. Or are there ?
[17:12] <mdawaffe> would it require EVERY contributor to give it the ok
[17:12] <mdawaffe> ?
[17:12] <tunicwriter> Probably
[17:12] <mikelittle> I think it may.
[17:12] <ringmaster> Hasn't every contributor already given implicit ok?
[17:12] <Podz> yes
[17:13] <mdawaffe> when?
[17:13] <Podz> by typing - so I keep gettign told
[17:13] <relle> It's in the edit screen, to a point.
[17:13] <skippy> I think we could reasonably excise the content from unavailable / non-responsive participants, if we had to.
[17:14] <mikelittle> When you register on the Codex Wiki, do you get told that your contribution will be licensed GPL?
[17:14] <skippy> most content is from current participants, I think ?
[17:14] <mdawaffe> I thought that's what started this - that this 'implicit ok' wasn't good enough
[17:14] <Podz> hey - we could always have this when someone does something totally unreasonable and yet because we did nothing about this, we are powerless. Act sooner, not later
[17:14] <relle> This is what I think should happen. We need to find out what FSF will do for WP - codex or otherwise. We need to determine responsiblities and willingness to defend or prosecute, or not. Whose up for contacting them and asking for specifics of responsiblities?
[17:14] <Podz> I will.
[17:14] <relle> Great.
[17:14] <relle> Any one have any specific questions that Podz will need to ask them?
[17:14] <Podz> If anyone has any points - emal me ?
[17:15] <tunicwriter> The contributor thing, they're liable to know the answer, heh.
[17:15] <Podz> I've my own list of q's, but more is better. I will crosspost to the lists as well as into codex.
[17:16] <mikelittle> OK. Good.
[17:16] <Podz> but - are we generally agreed this is worth looking at ? And if they can assist that we go with them ?
[17:16] <tunicwriter> You got the "cost" factor covered?
[17:16] <Podz> If you all say not, there is no point
[17:16] <relle> And if not them, look at other options so we can cover the bases.
[17:17] <mikelittle> Are wev talking GPL? rather than the Gnu docu license?
[17:17] <mikelittle> *we*
[17:17] <Podz> no clue
[17:17] <Podz> but codex does need sorting ?
[17:17] <skippy> it's my understanding that the issue surrounding FSF is not one of license, but of copyright ownership.
[17:18] <mikelittle> The GNU Documentation license has some issues. Debian have regarded it non-free in the past, though I don't know the current situation.
[17:18] <skippy> I don't the FSF particularly cares which license we use.
[17:18] <Podz> there are 14 potential yes/no here ...... is this worth going for ?
[17:18] <ringmaster> mikelittle: You must have missed last week's meetup. Nobody really knows the answer to that question.
[17:18] <skippy> By transferring copyright to the FSF, they would become the legal entity responsible for enforcement against vioaltions.
[17:18] <mikelittle> The FSF will only be interested in a 'free' licence. E.g some of the CC licences are not.
[17:19] <mdawaffe> Podz: it is worth looking into
[17:19] <Podz> I'll establish all the action we need to take, but -------- if the FSF says yes, is that good ?
[17:19] <mikelittle> The whole copyrigt and license issue is worth clarifying, yes.
[17:19] <Podz> if you'll all say No, why bother ?
[17:20] <relle> I say get more information and let us know more.
[17:20] <skippy> Podz: my guess is that the FSF will have specific guidance as to what's expected of us, if they are interested.
[17:20] <Podz> thats two :) I'll go with 2
[17:20] <tunicwriter> I think it's worth looking into, yes. I think the final decision should be left up to Matt...
[17:20] <skippy> I am currently in favor of this line of action.
[17:20] <Podz> I will email them tomorrow am
[17:20] <relle> thanks for looking into this.
[17:20] <mdawaffe> I'd like to hear feedback from FSF before making a definative y/n
[17:20] <relle> And for thinking long term thoughts to protect wordpress and the volunteers.
[17:21] <Podz> mdawaffe, i will make every piece of correspondence public. Nothing will be hidden
[17:21] <Podz> even the headers :)
[17:21] <relle> oh, joy..
[17:21] <relle> ;-)
[17:21] <relle> next on the list?
[17:21] <mikelittle> The licence for the WP *code* needs clarifying too. It's not explicit, in fact there are some violations in the code.
[17:21] <mdawaffe> I just meant I' like their input before I cast a final vote
[17:22] <mdawaffe> I have every faith in you, Podz
[17:22] <ringmaster> I think that getting more info from the FSF is prudent before deciding what to do definitively.
[17:22] <Podz> mikelittle, agreed - but apprently it'll be easier to sort codex first
[17:22] <mikelittle> ok
[17:22] <Podz> please do email me questions you want answering - and feel free to do so offlists
[17:22] <relle> thanks again, Podz.
[17:23] <Podz> s'ok - need an excuse not to redo my site :)
[17:23] <relle> Okay, next on the list is the forums and the issue of sending all MU issues to the mu.wordpress.org forum or setting up an wordpress.com section in the forum to help users.
[17:23] <Podz> .com should have it's own branded forums
[17:24] <skippy> I vote for a separate forum installation, at a wordpress.com URI, for wordpress.com supprot.
[17:24] <tunicwriter> You may want to note how drupal handles their docs... Copyright to the contributors, in accordance with CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0...
[17:24] <relle> Something that needs to be clarified on this issue is that there are two "groups" being serviced with MU. One is the installer - the host, and the other is the user.
[17:24] <relle> Right now, only the hosts are being serviced with the MU forum.
[17:24] <ringmaster> Nobody is talking about MU.
[17:24] <relle> If wordpress.com has it's own BB, then that's a different issue.
[17:25] <relle> Any MU site can have its own BB. That's up to the host.
[17:25] <tunicwriter> If it had its own BB, would it have to have its own Codex, as well? ...
[17:25] <relle> But the wordpress name is on the title and the users are going to come to WordPress Support. So far, the hosts go to mu.wordpress.org
[17:25] <skippy> mu support should be at mu.wordpress.org; wordpress (the application) support should be where it is now; and wordpress (the service) support should be inside wordpress.com somewhere/
[17:25] <relle> tunicwriter: no
[17:25] <Podz> I'm with skippy
[17:25] <ringmaster> I think that beyond depending on Matt to open a forum for these topics, there is an onus on the forum volunteers to say "We don't support that, go bug Matt for your own forum."
[17:25] <mikelittle> Skippy +1
[17:26] <mdawaffe> I believe matt intends to set up a .com support site
[17:26] <masquerade> I'm withs kippy too
[17:26] <skippy> ringmaster: I agree with that. Does anyone have any objections to such an approach ?
[17:26] <mdawaffe> and skippy +1
[17:26] <relle> For users, not hosts, wordpress.com, or any WordPressMU site is WordPress 1.6. It is not anything different. They can't mess with the templates or add plugins.
[17:26] <masquerade> especially if its going to be paid service at some point
[17:26] <relle> I totally disagree.
[17:26] <relle> I think that support for users should stay with the Support Forum.
[17:27] <relle> If I'm using a wordpress product, and I want to know how to do podcasting, I want to go to one place.
[17:27] <ringmaster> Support for users of WordPress can stay at the WordPress Support Forum.
[17:27] <relle> Hosts that deal with the technical site that is special to MU need to go to MU.
[17:27] <ringmaster> Support for users of WordPress.com needs to go somewhere so that it doesn't get confused with WordPress.org.
[17:27] <ringmaster> This doesn't even touch on the idea that MU is based on 1.6, which we are NOT supporting in the WP.org forums.
[17:28] <relle> If the "community" of an MU site wants a BB, then that's their own thing and they can learn to help each other. But for solid help with WordPress as a user based product, I say one place: Support Forums.
[17:28] <mdawaffe> relle: it is very different software from the user's perspective
[17:28] <mikelittle> Relle: I agree, but the mu specific user support issue should be separate from common WP issues.
[17:28] <skippy> the possibility for confusion to users is high. A WP.COM user posts, complaining about some theme problem. The troubleshooting steps available to them are _nonexistant_.
[17:28] <trevorturk> at the very least, shouldn't a new FORUM be made? using the same bbpress install, but making a new forum like "Installation" and "Plugins and Hacks" are now?
[17:28] <relle> Why would users have different problems? They have less problems since they aren't screwing with the templates or core files.
[17:28] <mikelittle> Yes, themes are the first place where the issues and solutions are very different.
[17:28] <relle> They still want to know how to upload images, make categories, Pages, blog rolls, etc.
[17:29] <skippy> relle: because WP.COM is running largely untested code.
[17:29] <relle> For the next month or two.
[17:29] <tunicwriter> That's what the Feedback tab is for...
[17:29] <relle> Soon, everyone will be using 1.6
[17:29] <Podz> reducing user confusion is part of the forum role. Rolling it together would create confusion. Keep it apart
[17:29] <skippy> relle: I think it's safe to assume that WP.COM will always push the bleeding edge.
[17:29] <Podz> relle, 1.6 ? No.....thats an assumption
[17:30] <mdawaffe> but some of those things (upload, for ex) are different
[17:30] <Podz> I have no intention of using it :) Where do i go ?
[17:30] <relle> What's an assumption? That the forum won't help 1.6 users when 1.6 is released to the publicd?
[17:30] <relle> Right now, the forum serves the different versions, with strong recommendations to upgrade. But that's not the issue.
[17:30] <ringmaster> An assumption that everyone will use 1.6, or that it will be relesed in a couple of months.
[17:30] <relle> If someone comes from any MU hosted site and needs help uploading, posting, categorizing, or Paging, do we turn them away?
[17:31] <ringmaster> Yeah, because MU is not WordPress.
[17:31] <masquerade> relle, we should, they're using a hosted service, not WordPRess
[17:31] <Podz> relle - forums yes. Apart yes.
[17:31] <skippy> I wouldn't turn them away outright; I just wouldn't answer because I have no idea of what the troubleshooting steps are.
[17:31] <skippy> re: uploading, at least
[17:31] <relle> Okay, so we're going to say "If you are using the full version of WordPress, you are welcome." If you are using a limited/crippled version of WordPress, though it basiccally is the same, then you aren't welcome.
[17:32] <Podz> NO#
[17:32] <skippy> let's step back.
[17:32] <ringmaster> Yeah, they wouldn't get supoprt for the simple reason that nobody doing support there knows how to use MU.
[17:32] <skippy> Some of this is academic speculation.
[17:32] <masquerade> relle, no, we're going to say "if you're not hosting your own WordPress install, then you talk to the person who is hosting your MU install"
[17:32] <Podz> we ask matt to create new forums dedicated to their support
[17:32] <tunicwriter> Why not just point users to the MU forums and be done with it?
[17:32] <skippy> What kind of post / category problems are Wordpress.com users having?
[17:32] <relle> There are now a lot of volunteers who have wordpress.com invites. And as 1.6 reaches beta, there will be more volunteers familiar with how it works.
[17:32] <relle> Reality is that it isn't THAT different from 1.5
[17:32] <Podz> yes it is
[17:32] <ringmaster> 1.6 is NOT MU.
[17:33] <relle> RIGHT.
[17:33] <ringmaster> and 1.6 is CERTAINLY NOT 1.5.
[17:33] <masquerade> relle, uhm, 1.6 is massively different than 1.5, and MU is massively different than 1.6
[17:33] <relle> The "surface" looks the same, for the most part - just a few colors. Under the hood, it is very different.
[17:33] <masquerade> very few people know all three inside and out
[17:33] <relle> Users still post, uploading, and so on.
[17:33] <relle> I'm thinking of the users, not the breakers and putters back togetherers. ;-)
[17:33] <skippy> let's consider several real problems people have.
[17:34] <skippy> Uploading.
[17:34] <relle> Problems that MU "users" have is uploading, writing, understanding categories and Pages.
[17:34] <relle> Styling within a post.
[17:34] <skippy> If a MU user has trouble uploading, they NEED to work with their provider, since they don't have an actual system account to use FTP
[17:34] <Podz> This debate alone should illustrate that trying to combine would be hell. Matt - can we have a different support forum setup for .com please ?
[17:34] <masquerade> wp.com and MU stuff need to stay away from wp.org, we'll confuse everyone including ourselves
[17:34] <skippy> slow posting? Pings? All server related troubles. Nothing we can do to help them.
[17:35] <relle> The problems that users have with the core features of their MU site is no different from the core features of any version of WordPress.
[17:35] <skippy> styling inside a post? Sure, we can talk about that with a MU user.
[17:35] <skippy> relle: I disagree strongly with that claim.
[17:35] <relle> They just can't play with Themes and Plugins.
[17:35] <relle> "core" not customization.
[17:35] <skippy> or control pinging ?
[17:35] <Podz> It's not like we are syaing we wouldn't help - we would - we are thinking of the users. Users who we can say "Search" to and know they cannot get confused by irrelevant results
[17:35] <mikelittle> This is the essence. Some issues will be WP/MU generic. Some will WP/MU specific. The specific need to be separated.
[17:36] <relle> We just need to be clear that the Forum will not alienate any MU user that comes looking for help. The WordPress "community" is one that works together.
[17:36] <Podz> who said it would ??
[17:36] <ringmaster> "Help for WPMU is [here]."
[17:37] <ringmaster> "Help for WordPress.com is [here]."
[17:37] <ringmaster> "Scroll down for WordPress help."
[17:37] <mikelittle> I think common sense / judgement should allow support to say. "That issue is MU specific go ask 'over there' "
[17:37] <relle> I agree with that.
[17:37] <masquerade> what happens when we get people like I've seen in IRC over the past few days
[17:37] <masquerade> the ones that ask how to install themes and plugins
[17:38] <masquerade> and 10 minutes into them asking questions they give up the fact that they're at wp.com
[17:38] <relle> So we teach the volunteers to "ask first".
[17:38] <Podz> thats a .com issue - it needs a readme in the dash
[17:38] <masquerade> Podz, it will be an issue for all MU installs
[17:38] <Podz> so it needs to be agood readme :)
[17:39] <relle> Soon, there will be more customization for Themes and Plugins in MU by the user, which will help direct the user to those features.
[17:39] <relle> And to more help regarding those.
[17:39] <masquerade> Podz, as obvious by the amout of forum questions answered on the codex already, users don't read docs, its proven
[17:39] <mdawaffe> wp.com needs its own how-to and its own forums/support
[17:39] <skippy> I concur with mdawaffe
[17:39] <ringmaster> Me too.
[17:39] <mdawaffe> that seems the bottom line
[17:39] <masquerade> mdawaffe, agreed
[17:40] <skippy> the "howto' can be cribbed from the Codex. It'll be short.
[17:40] <relle> Okay, so we recommend that MU hosts do as much as they can to help their "own users" and that MU host/server related issues get directed to MU forum.
[17:40] <masquerade> and, MU users that aren't the host need to look to who is hosting for help
[17:40] <relle> And that users of MU will not be "turned away" but helped as much as possible and nudged in the right direction, depending upon their problems.
[17:40] <Podz> relle, by the time they have posted, we have 'asked', they have replied, we ask for 'more info' ...... .com needs it's own support forums where the product can grow. We do NOT need it all lumped together. not like server space is at a premum
[17:40] <mikelittle> mdawaffe: Agreed. The 'feedback form ' is for feedback not support.
[17:40] <mdawaffe> skippy: very true
[17:40] <stevecoo1ey> maybe they should change the name of multi-user.. since that's a misnomer anyway...
[17:40] <Podz> no-one said they would be turned away!!
[17:41] <masquerade> relle, the idea is that most people will never come in the first place, and when they do, if we can't help, then they're SOL
[17:41] <relle> Right.
[17:41] <mikelittle> stevecoo1ey: MU is multi-user. One installation multiple users.
[17:41] <relle> I want to make sure that we continue to help as much as possible.
[17:42] <skippy> seems to me that wordpress.com could easily have its own community: throw a "support" link in the menu bar that leads to a separate forum. Instant community; obvious support path.
[17:42] <relle> stevecoo1ey: and the usage is "WordPress", just crippled.
[17:42] <stevecoo1ey> mikelittle: your regular wordpress handles multiple users quite well... MU is multiple _blogs_ with one install
[17:42] <masquerade> skippy, yep, I'd much rather have them on their own forums than the wp.org community
[17:42] <relle> skippy: I'm hoping that more MU hosted sites will do that, reinforcing the sense of community.
[17:42] <masquerade> I don't mind supporting people who are all for the free stuff
[17:42] <masquerade> but as soon as wp.com goes paid, I'm not helping them. I won't be matt's slave with no pay
[17:43] <mikelittle> But those multiple users *can* be enabled across multiple blogs.
[17:43] <masquerade> so, they might as well separate themselves now, cause I know many volunteers will be the same way
[17:43] <ringmaster> Is wp.com going paid?
[17:43] <mdawaffe> masquerade: did i miss something?
[17:43] <mdawaffe> $?
[17:43] <masquerade> ringmaster, I always assumed that was the idea at some point, the way it was talked about as being "like typepad"
[17:43] <relle> Matt has said repeatedly that if you got in wordpress.com for free, then it will stay free.
[17:44] <relle> That's a vague statement.
[17:44] <ringmaster> But there may eventually be a fee?
[17:44] <skippy> it "staying free" for me doesn't mean it _is_ free.
[17:44] <relle> That's up to Matt and whatever he does with it.
[17:44] <mikelittle> I suspect there will be a paid MU from Matt at some point but it won't be wp.com
[17:44] <Podz> the model lends itself to that for other organisations does it not ? So it follows that the forum knowledge becomes valuable to all users / hosts.
[17:44] <relle> And the Typepad comparisons come from other sources, not WordPress sources. Hype.
[17:44] <masquerade> mikelittle, I think it will be, think about it, .com is commercial ;-)
[17:45] <relle> Some say .com is "community". ;-)
[17:45] <Podz> lets be clear here - the stuff you type into a forum answer now is not covered clearly
[17:45] <ringmaster> relle: They'd be wrong.
[17:45] <masquerade> relle, ICANN says its commercial
[17:45] <relle> hee hee
[17:45] <skippy> pedantry++
[17:45] <tunicwriter> Heh, masquerade wins.
[17:45] <mdawaffe> http://somethingunpredictable.com/
[17:46] <mdawaffe> .com :)
[17:46] <masquerade> mdawaffe, so? how do you know I don't make money from it?
[17:46] <relle> okay, back to the point.
[17:46] <stevecoo1ey> I thought it meant ".com-edy"
[17:46] <mdawaffe> from me?
[17:46] <masquerade> mdawaffe, from my .com
[17:46] <mdawaffe> from your users?
[17:46] <Podz> Forums for .com apart from .org ? yes/No ?
[17:46] <relle> forum helps where we can and directs where we can't. And hope that the MU folks get their own BB to help each other. Right?
[17:47] <mdawaffe> that's what we were talking about
[17:47] <skippy> aye.
[17:47] <mikelittle> Podz Yes.
[17:47] <stevecoo1ey> then again, I do live in silicon valley, so a lot of the .com action has been pure comedy
[17:47] <mdawaffe> but we diress
[17:47] <mdawaffe> digress
[17:47] <ringmaster> To be clear: The native support for those services should be elsewhere.
[17:47] <ringmaster> Don't direct folks to wp.org forums for wp.com help.
[17:47] <mikelittle> Forums for mu *hosters* on mu.wordpress.org?
[17:48] <skippy> that makes sense to me, mikelittle
[17:48] <Podz> more forums would also help the dev of bbPress :)
[17:48] <relle> Okay, who wants to ask, since I already have and was turned down, to have the links in the Administration Panels for MU sites changed to non-wordpress.org/support?
[17:49] <skippy> I'll do it.
[17:49] <relle> Thanks.
[17:49] <Podz> that resource needs setting up
[17:49] <masquerade> skippy, start a hackers thread?
[17:49] <relle> Next up is ringmaster.
[17:49] <skippy> I'd like to hear what ringmaster has.
[17:49] <skippy> masquerade: yes.
[17:49] <ringmaster> Pontless without Matt, unless someone else knows.
[17:49] <masquerade> since matt isn't around, a lot of this can be discussed on the hackers list over the next week or so when he will be there
[17:49] <skippy> masquerade: and cross-post to forums.
[17:49] <relle> true.
[17:49] <relle> Okay, anything else on the agenda?
[17:50] <skippy> I'd like to put my voice on record against a blending of WP and MU in the short term.
[17:50] <tunicwriter> I'll ditto that, with emphasis on short term
[17:50] <relle> What does that mean?
[17:50] <skippy> Specifically, I don't want the core WordPress functionality softened to support third-party applications which have limited audience.
[17:51] <ringmaster> There are a ton of options changes in WP geared toward MU.
[17:51] <relle> But will you "support" plugin authors and Theme designers who want to modify or write for MU audiences?
[17:51] <ringmaster> I won't.
[17:51] <masquerade> that's why we need a MU forum
[17:51] <skippy> many features we request / submit for inclusion in the core get rejected because the number of users who would benefit are minimal.
[17:51] <mikelittle> I think Donncha has managed to keep a lot of it separate for a long time. But I now think Matt keeps MU in mind when designing new code.
[17:51] <skippy> It seems like the change ringmaster questioned today clearly falls into that realm.
[17:52] <mdawaffe> i have yet to see 'softening' happen, but i agree
[17:52] <relle> And there are a lot of features and cool things that are coming into the MU 1.6 sites that will benefit full version users, too. I think it can cross over.
[17:52] <masquerade> skippy, the change on how user stuff is handled?
[17:52] <ringmaster> Really? If so, I have yet to see them in SVN.
[17:52] <skippy> masquerade: removal of the unique constaint on login name.
[17:52] * Joins: coffee2code
[17:53] <Podz> appropriate: http://wordpress.org/support/topic/45118#post-251167
[17:53] <relle> ringmaster: what are you really worried about?
[17:53] <mdawaffe> skippy: that's not softening of *functionality* though
[17:53] <ringmaster> I'm not worried. I just want to know what software I'm writing.
[17:54] <ringmaster> If I'm supposed to develop a merged product, then tell me.
[17:54] <skippy> mdawaffe: not functionality; but it does weaken what I see as a very important component: database integrity.
[17:54] <relle> Podz:excellent example.
[17:55] <Podz> yep - even ryan says we need different :)
[17:55] * Joins: Usayd
[17:56] <skippy> ringmaster: am I correct in thinking that you'd like to see something more of a roadmap for WordPress development?
[17:56] <mdawaffe> skippy: naturally, i can't argue with that. It's a tradeoff that needs to be very carefully considered
[17:56] <relle> as compared to MU development?
[17:56] <ringmaster> That's like looking for the holy grail, ain't it?
[17:56] <mikelittle> As usual, knowing what Matt has in mind would be helpful, but not forthcoming.
[17:56] <ringmaster> IF WP and MU don't merge, I couldn't give a rats ass about MU.
[17:58] <skippy> any action items here? Or is this just "wait and see" ?
[17:58] <relle> I see the only "merge" being that WordPress will become much more user friendly, helping users do more customization and feature choices without digging into the code. MU, for now, is content focused and not tweaking focused.
[17:58] <relle> I see "wait and see".
[17:58] <Podz> I differ.
[17:58] <relle> Anything else on the agenda?
[17:59] <ringmaster> WordPress becomes more user friendly by adding features that only site admins of multi-blog sites care about? Interesting.
[17:59] <relle> no.
[17:59] <mikelittle> relle: Agreed. I see MU as the blogger style 'beginners version'. Good, but limited. You graduate to proper WP when you want more.
[17:59] <relle> That's about it.
[17:59] <ringmaster> Ok. Let me clarify, then.
[18:00] <relle> blogging 101 = MU site. Blogging 501 - WordPress.
[18:00] <Podz> so why do they appear to be merging ?
[18:00] <ringmaster> MU is a software product, not a hosted service.
[18:00] <relle> Hosted services install MU.
[18:00] <skippy> wordpress.com is a hosted service based on WordPress MU.
[18:00] <mikelittle> It's a software product that is designed to facilitate hosted services.
[18:01] <mikelittle> Podz, where is the merge?
[18:01] <relle> users have a choice of going with a preinstalled, limited, easy to use version of WordPress, or buying their own site and installing the full version of WordPress.
[18:01] <mikelittle> MU uses the core of WP 1.6 then adds it's onw stuff. Replacing some of 1.6
[18:01] <relle> The only "merge" is that WordPress as administration panels and function is still WordPress. It's the features that are available that are different.
[18:01] <ringmaster> No, users have three choices: Using an account on a preinstalled MU, installing their own WP, or installing MU for users of their own.
[18:01] <Podz> mikelittle, with the post that was highlighted, it appears there is a code change in wp which is of dubious nature
[18:02] <mdawaffe> that's not merging, that's sharing
[18:02] <relle> I think of "users" and "hosts" as two groups.
[18:02] <ringmaster> Fine, whatever you want to call them, there are three of them.
[18:02] <relle> If you install MU, you are a host.
[18:02] <Podz> okay ..... all I'm seeing in more reasons to not look at or recommend 1.6 for your average blogger. But time will tell.
[18:02] <mikelittle> But Matt's response was that the change is more related to creating a pluggable user system. I suspect for wp, mu, bb, and mediawiki!
[18:03] <mdawaffe> (my remark was to relle's)
[18:03] <relle> I agree with sharing.
[18:03] <ringmaster> None of those systems allow for multiple user accounts with the same login name.
[18:03] <mikelittle> But a site hosting all of them, might want one user table
[18:03] <skippy> mikelittle: I understand that may have been the intention; but I don't see how multiple usernames helps. Hosting multiple services with a single user database you actually want single-sign-on, so the unique constraint is still important.
[18:04] <mdawaffe> skippy: same thoughts
[18:04] <mikelittle> Same person different roles, permissions, names
[18:04] <ringmaster> mikelittle: roles/capabilities are in a different table.
[18:04] <skippy> mikelittle: permissions aren't stored in the user table, though, are they?
[18:04] <mdawaffe> mikelittle: usermeta can still be separated
[18:04] <mikelittle> no, but the still unique id is fk into user meta
[18:05] <skippy> would mediawiki, bbPress and WordPress all use the same usermeta table? I thnk not. The roles and permissions are different.
[18:06] <skippy> (I'm not trying to be antagonistic, by the way)
[18:06] <mdawaffe> so what's the advantage of multiple "bob"s?
[18:07] <mikelittle> I'm interploating what could be done from previous work on coordinating users across these systems and matts remarks. I could see a single user who, is admin on is blog, volunteer on a forum and contributor on a wiki all with the same login.
[18:07] <ringmaster> mikelittle: And that works even with the unique constraint.
[18:07] <mdawaffe> that can all be done with one user and discreet usermeta
[18:07] <mikelittle> Let's wait to see Matts intention. Drifting off topic though!
[18:08] <skippy> matt's answer to ringmaster's question was less then helpful, in my opinion. I think we really need a better answer from him, to understand his motive a little more thoroughly. I'm willing to accept that there might be a whiz-bang feature predicated on this. I'm doubtful of that, but am willing to be educated.
[18:08] <mdawaffe> :) true
[18:08] <ringmaster> Totally agreed, skippy.
[18:08] <ringmaster> And I'm perfectly willing to continue developing features based on whatever new knowledge is passed my way.
[18:09] <skippy> any other items? it's time for me to leave.
[18:09] <mdawaffe> seeya, all
[18:09] * skippy waves.
[18:09] * Parts: skippy ("Free as in Puppies!"�)
[18:10] * Quits: mdawaffe
[18:10] <relle> Anything else?
[18:10] <ringmaster> masquerade is da bomb.
[18:10] <ringmaster> Just thought I'd point that out.
[18:11] <relle> Agreed.
[18:11] <relle> ;-)
[18:11] <relle> </meetup>
[18:11] <relle> Thanks everyone.