This is a common problem with community driven and written software. There is no direct leadership and consensus is always a FU at best. Then there are cliques and the list is long.
This is not a very strong taunt to the FC community. I think they could care less.
To back Kunda's observation, I can't exactly imagine why we'd care, either.
I don't think of any developer as being some type of carnivore, from which a reaction can only be had by annoyance. To me that analogy in the subject title is especially disrespectful and offensive.
OldDraftsman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:28 pmAnyone interested in getting together a lump of cash to goad the developers into fixing this stupid Topological Naming disaster that is just being perpetuated through each new iteration of FC as features are added; instead of fixing broken things first?
Someone of great trust and respect on the Forums can be the Escrow holder and I am happy to start by throwing in $100.
So, by consensus,
We need an Escrow holder. Not me as no one should ever suggest a plan then be the holder of the cash.
We need the devs interested in participating.
We need a group that can validate participating devs skills to perform the task without adding more problems.
We need that group to select one dev for the work.
We need to define a finite time for the completion of the Topo-naming being solved.
We need to pay out to the dev who does the work and to two or more programmers with the skills and knowledge to check and verify the changes.
We need to define who gets how much each. The guts of the money should go to the dev doing the work, say 70% for the dev and 30% for the checkers to split between themselves.
We probably need a lot more, but this should get it started.
No. This gives you no credibility, because nobody really knows you. Talk is cheap.
I'll give you this, I really miss Jürgen Riegel, the project's founder - he disappeared a few years back. He had the moral authority to assume the leadership position and resolve development issues.
NormandC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:32 amSolving the topological naming issue in FreeCAD will not be the silver bullet so many of you are expecting.
Here's some very useful reading about another commercial parametric program: https://dezignstuff.com/why-solidworks-needs-a-system/
I've followed Matt Lombard's blog for years because even though I don't use Solidworks, I find his insights often apply to most CAD programs.
Excerpt:Matt Lombard wrote:Now we have to talk about Pro/E. Remember Pro/E had a reputation of being difficult to use, and fairly rigid when it came to procedures. Back in the early 90’s, people who taught Pro/E taught some kind of method, or structured procedure. Something like a skeleton model, master model, or references built around planes. It was structured, it was tough to use, people failed to follow the procedures sometimes and made a mess of things. But it worked if you followed the procedure. Models were less likely to lose parent/child relations if you built everything around planes and sketches (like Stoltfus’ SSP method).
This is the point where all of those people who stopped reading this too-long blog already need to listen extra hard. It turns out that just modeling without any system leads to the chaos that it sounds like it would. There was a reason Pro/E was hard. There was a reason Pro/E users looked derisively down on SW converts. If you have a history-based model with intelligence built in, that intelligence needs to be structured, or it’s just chaos. SolidWorks freed the market by loosening the restraints, damn the chaos. Ease of use as a mantra really gets people’s attention, but discipline is less sexy. Regardless if you do it or not, history-based modeling really needs some structure – rules and procedures.