[PP-main] working towards peer press 1.0

[avi at itsg.net.au]

hi everyone,

i just took some time out to read the complete archive of the list
so far. i've put together what i believe the goals of the project are.
if you you agree or disagree, i'm sure the list (and I) would love
to hear why.

---

first, a project focus (mission statement?) :
peer press exists to deliver free, quality content to the internet.

my ideal of peer press is the above. a system that allows sites to access
a wealth of information to display to their visitors, as well as being able
to contribute back into that wealth themselves.

 (
 i feel this data should be limited to actual content though,
 not the discussion of it. isn't that why you go to a particular
 site in the first place, for the flavor and style of the discussions?
 also, in a similar veign - the responsibility of username/passwords/
 authentication to access a particular site should fall on the
 shoulders of said site's administrators.
 implementing an authentication scheme which will interact with all
 sites displaying peer press content may sound good in theory, but in
 (implementation) practice i personally would imagine it to be a nightmare.
 let's leave the administrivia to the sites and focus on quality content
 delivery.
 ).

once a clear project focus has been established, it is easier to
work towards something. that something will need to take the following
into account:

* free content - text, images, audio, video, other
  + free:
    - the information should be available to anyone for any use.
    - authors should receive credit of course. peer press can (should?) be seen
      as a way of gaining reputation as a content manufacturer,
      as authors will receive no renumeration from peer press (even
      though they may from the affiliate site who publishes their work
      first, before it makes its way onto the rest of the pp network).
      imagine in 2010 spending your "internship" as a journalist by
      writing articles for the express purpose of having them accepted
      to peer press through an affiliate site, simply for "name recognition".
      your chances of receiving "paid" work when you graduate are much
      higher, in much the same way that free software authors are now
      being snatched up by the big companies and paid to continue their
      current projects.
    - a suitable license will need to be used,
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses
      has a list. whether or not this list is complete or even suitable
      remains to be discussed.
    - content authors will have to acknowledge their work will be
      published under this license. this can be done at the affiliate
      sites, by the affiliate sites.
  + text:
    - used for delivering actual text content, as well as headlines etc.
    - must have provisions for minor formatting (italic, bold, underlined),
      the content layout is up to the site displaying it.
    - XML is the obvious choice. sticking to an existing DTD may be
      helpful, but if it places limits on the project then a custom
      one may be the only solution.
  + images, audio, video, other:
    - MUST be based on a free (speech AND beer) codec/format.

* authorization/trust metrics
  + ((ppserver <-> ppserver) && (ppserver <-> ppaffiliate site))
  + authorization
    - there must be strict authorization measures for receipt and
      transmittal of data to and from the peer press network.
  + trust
    - a scheme will need to be devised for rating/accepting content
      being "contributed" to the peer press by affiliate sites.

* delivery mechanism
  + existing (xml via http)
    - pros
      o already exists in the field
      o packet filtering usually allows it through
    - cons
      o does it do everything it needs to?
  + new standard (xml via ?)
    - pros
      o can be tailored to meet the needs of peer press
    - cons
      o time to market
      o see pros of existing

---

i hope i haven't been too redundant, and that this message leads to
some thoughtful discussion. i think a release early and release often
attitude should be taken, however, and would like to see a "spec"
for peer press as soon as possible. (maybe even based off of this document?)

thanks for your time!

- avi