Plugin vs. Code modification

[Erwin]

Originally Posted by tamarian

Erwin, this sentence was stuck in my mind for a while, as I was wondering who does Erwin have to lobby? I mean the hacks were moved ovenight from plugins to code midification without any word. And now the vb.org admins need to lobby to get it back or add a 3rd category?

I honetly mean no disrespect by asking this, but who is making these dicisions for vb.org? I can understand vb.com would want certain controls for licensing reasons, but other than that, the hack authors here (that would include staff and us non staff equally) should be the ones deciding on what happens with our work..

The recent closed discussion and the insulting idea that "authors may exploit members" and ending the discussion with "this is how it's going to be for now" does further my concerns that mod authors no longer have any say on how their work would be handled, and decisions would be made on their behalf without consultation with them or without even an explanation until the deed is done.

Categoris and classification issues would pale in comparison to having external sources dictate things, (or by some staff) despite what is best for mod authors and mod users, with no consultation, and this new attitude by staff ("this is how it's going to be", "stop talking about it", "what do you need it for?" etc....).

The hacks were moved because ever since the start of this site, any file uploads were considered a "hack". A "hack" has always been associated with "hacking a file". When 3.5 came out with "plugins" this caused some confusion amongst everyone, both members and staff.

No one could agree what a plugin hack should be defined as - technically, it can be a hack that only uses hooks with no code or file uploads but some may argue it should be used for any hacks that usess hooks, even if there is code modification.

This issue will be moot with the new database-like frontend for vB.org when we go to 3.5 since a hack may at that time have multiple categories at once - "plugin", "file upload", "code modification"...

But for the moment, to make it easier for people, we decided on the category definitions as posted in the announcement linked in the previous post.

As for why I have to lobby... Amongst vB.org staff, we discuss things like this. Even though I am an Admin, I do not "walk over" the moderators here - I listen to them, and if I want something, I have to put forth my own arguments - hence "lobby". I agree with most of you that "extensions" or "upload hacks" should be classified separately. Remember, they have never been classified separately for many years - it's only now that we have decided to do so.

Also, to touch on your issue of having mod authors' work "being dictated by an external force" - don't tell us we don't listen because we do. We are adding database front-end, adding this new "extension" classification, etc. because of member feedback.

As staff of a forum like this, obviously we need to administrate it the best we can - but members are very free and more than welcome to suggest ideas etc. I for one am open to all ideas and suggestions.

As forum admins, we all understand these issues I am sure.

Hope that explains it.

[Reeve of shinra]

We're working on our new Database system

That sounds good. Hopefully it will solve alot of the problems that will come with finding stuff.

[Erwin]

The new database classifies hacks using a dynamic flag system.

So for example, if a hack uses hooks, template changes, phrase changes, file upload and code mods, you can choose to sort hacks to be displayed according to all of the above.

Or you can choose to display only plugins with no file uploads.

Or plugins with code mods.

Or just hacks that uses file uploads and no hooks.

The idea is you choose what sort of hacks you want so that the people who want to avoid modifying vB source code can choose to do so.

It should be very flexible. That's the idea anyway.