Mindful of the need to work with what we've got and move forward -here are some competition ideas:
Proposal 1. Lose the prize
Geeks are competitive enough without prizes. They want the glory. This is american idol, not fear-factor. Prizes up the need for rules, and rules are bad.Proposal 2. Lose the name "mashup"
This term is too loaded towards, well mashups -and looking at the rules posted on nzopengis, what we are doing would be better described using the more inclusive term "fryup"Proposal 3. Lose the Open Source requirements
I thought about this for a while, because it might just be self interest (open source rules will rule out my competing using my proprietary platform -i concede that i have other options)I don't think that someone who builds on say, the MapInfo platform, should be disadvantaged compared to someone who works against say MapGuide Open Source. *I don't hear anyone in the FOSS world crying out for some kind of special olympics.*
I trust the judges to judge the contribution, not whose shoulders you happen to be standing on.
Requiring an entry's implementation to be open, but allowing use of a proprietary platform might be workable.
Proposal 4. The judges decision shall be final, abitrary -and wrong headed
This needs to be stated clearly. The only alternative is stifling codification. Picking the three finalists then pulling a name out of a hat sounds appalling, but how otherwise would you distinguish between someone who made a convincing case for the existence of wild polar bears hiding in the southern alps, and someone who implemented a complete gis in z80 assembly on their twenty five dollar mp3 player?Proposal 5. Like, lose the rules dudes
What is this latest nonsense about metadata? Whoever came up with that innovation should be sure to introduce themselves to me at the bbq "before" I have drunk more than half a can of beer -lest I introduce myself after one and a half cans and deliver my metadata lecture. Why should the solution be workable by "people untrained in GIS"? That is a generally nice idea, but not *always* relevant. Why make it a rule?Rules are necessary evils -please introduce them only as a last resort. As soon as you create one, you create an opening that is just crying out to be closed by, another rule. Proposal 4. is the solution, not rules.
Proposal 6. Tell us what you like
OK, you did. But tell us more. Put numbers on them.- How do you value say, the extent to which the work was created with the sole purpose of this competition vs some cool stuff you did anyway?
- How do you value geography vs coding?
- How do you value heroic efforts vs smart loop closing?
- How do you value radical ideas vs time and resources to implement them?
- How do you value an effort by a team of people vs a sole effort by someone who has no friends and spends their days making rambling forum posts?
- How much do you value the various software freedoms? Being explicit here would make it easier to include partly (wholly?) proprietary solutions.
Proposal 6. if you can't make it messy, make it stupid
- Why don't we all build one giant, candy-mountain of a solution -and (if we must) compete to make the biggest contribution?
- Or, How about we all switch projects halfway through?
- Or, How about we dispense with all that nasty implementation business, and just compete for best idea? Winner gets to have their solution implemented by the remaining members of INXS.
