The FP Room - yay or nay?

[Fairlight]

Simon--er, no...it was John Esak--said:
> who use the FP Room *and* this mailing list as well. Does the FP Room add
> to, or detract from this mailing list? Is it helpful? Should it stay around?
> Is it worth the rather enormous effort of the various people who give so
> much time so generously to its working and well being?

In order:

I consider The fP Room an augment to this list.  It shares most of the same
community, and as such is something I consider an extension.

It's extremely helpful in a plethora of ways.

Yes, it should stay around as long as you feel like maintining it.  I
believe it's a very worthwhile resource for everyone that's used it.  More
people should, honestly.

The value of the effort involved by contributors can be guaged by both the
contributors and the recipients.  We have some (both on the list and here)
that are bi-directional, and we have some uni-directional people as well.
It's hard to lay a flat answer on this.  However, if I believe that it's
helpful and that it should persist, I have to also believe that it's worth
the effort for any involved in making it work, obviously.  So yes, it's
worth the effort.

[Snip tech explanation.]

First, can I address something on the technical side?  As far as
software and cost/upgrade/downgrade goes, have you considered other
software?  TeamSpeak 2 has a Speex 25.9 Kbit codec that's not bad (I
use it daily)--nearly the same quality as the current setting of the fP
Room, although it does not have a codec currently that hits 44.1--which
I've always thought sounds better, yes, but is overkill as well.  It's
pretty cheap to license TeamSpeak, if you even need a license.  If it's
considered non-commercial use, you wouldn't even need to, actually.  Even
if you did, it's really fairly inexpensive.  I'm -not- saying you -should-
switch.  I'm trying to give you another option though, if you don't like
either of your current ones.  No mini-browser is present, but for VOIP it
works pretty much identically.  If you'd like to test drive it, I have
a server and would be happy to run through it with you.  There's also a
product I've heard good things about but have not personally tried, called
Ventrillo.  That one has a 44.1 codec that's supposed to be phenomenal, and
it also has the rather unique ability to tune the volume of each person
you're hearing, individually -on your end-.  That could solve quite a few
problems and save a lot of time, don't you think? :) Ventrillo also had
file transfer capabilities (direct, peer-to-peer), if I was given the
correct information and am remembering it correctly.  Those two features in
Ventrillo could actually make losing the mini-browser worth it, IMHO.  Not
familiar firsthand with Ventrillo's pricing, if any exists.  No clue.  Just
hear rave reviews from fellow gamers who use it.  Actually, one potentially
negative thing to keep in mind is that TeamSpeak is full duplex.  That
could be a jarring change to get use to, to be fair.  I'm unsure of
Ventrillo's status in that regard.  You might gain things, but you'd also
lose the queue system, which does help there.

Okay, done with the tech suggestions/options.  If you're interested in
exploring them, let me know and I'll help you as much as you want.  If
you're not, understood, and no problem.

Now the social side...

As for splitting up the room under -any- software, I really don't think
it's necessary, nor do I think it would be the wisest move.  If you're in
one place, you can respond to everyone from a central location.  If you
split it, you're going to have some in one room, others in another, and
some confusion about who's where, a lot of room flipping both to switch
conversations and to simply find people...it will simply make it -less-
accessible a resource, rather than more.  Whether it's been food, politics,
fP, music, whatever, those that I've known in the last two years there
have never had a problem sharing and being polite about interrupting or
switching topics temporarily if need be.

I would not split the room.  It's a community, same as here.  I say don't
fragment it.  It's going to cause more problems than it would solve--and I
haven't really observed a problem.  The furthest I'd go is to provide, say,
one or two separate channels where a couple/few people -could- pair off to
discuss something in more detail if it becomes really involved and there
is a lot going on and they don't want -any- distraction (e.g., you and
Jim are working and concentrating on barcode or printing stuff that just
-has- to be done two hours ago and can't have the distractions).  That's
been required very rarely, so I'd consider it only an emergency spillover
facility, not a necessity, and only use it when necessary.

I'd give continuance a definitive "YEA" vote--as long as it's not too big
a burden on you personally, John.  I know what running something like
that takes.  If you're willing, and if people are appreciative of it as
evidenced by their responses, I think it should definitely continue.

I'm certainly thankful for its existence.  It's done a lot for me in many
ways, both technical and personal.  I'm grateful for the help that's been
given me there, and to the people who do so.  Special thanks to the usual
"coffee clutch". :)  I haven't been hanging out near as much in the last
six months, but I've been by more often lately.  I -still- enjoy it, and
every time I've been by, I've benefitted in some way.

And you've been a remarkable host for two years!  "Well done!" doesn't
actually start to describe how much you pour into things helping people
there, both by maintaining it, and by direct contribution.  Can't praise
you highly enough on either.

Bests!

mark->