Re: Lilypond store?

[Quentin Spencer]

Trevor Bača wrote:

> On 7/5/06, Stewart Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > > I suggest that you start a discussion thread on mutopia's mailing 
> > lists:
> > > If
> > > you have constructive ideas on how to create an archive of 
> > high-quality
> > > public domain notes, then I would strongly recommend you to use 
> > your ideas
> > > to
> > > improve mutopia; if that's not possible, use mutopia as a base for
> > > creating
> > > such an archive (i.e., fork the mutopia project).
> >
> > Unfortunately I don't really have constructive ideas how to improve it;
>
>
> Well -- and this is a straw-man argument -- there's always the example
> of SlashDot and other projects with 'community content-filtering'. If
> the mutopia crew *could*, somehow, establish a system of community
> review, well then, maybe mutopia could become a repository of really
> professional-looking stuff.
>
> The difficulty, I think, is that it's probably easier to evaluate the
> wittiness of others' comments (or the relevance of news stories, as on
> SlashDot) than it is to evaluate the professional-ness of music
> engraving. So even if mutopia set up some sort of community filtering,
> it's not clear that the filtering would work.
>
> Dunno.



Not that I care too much one way or the other about mutopia, but I do 
believe community filtering can work if implemented properly, and if 
there enough people involved who care about it. As a contributor of 
packages to the Fedora Linux distribution (including a lilypond 
package), my packages are subjected to a fairly rigorous review process 
before they are accepted. The process has worked so well that the Core 
part of the distribution (the part packaged by engineers at Red Hat) has 
adopted some of the quality control processes used by Fedora Extras (the 
packages submitted by community members) because Extras was generating 
better quality work than Core. The same is true of academic journals 
that require peer review.

I think another question regarding selling scores is how much people 
would be willing to pay. Obviously the engraving quality must be as good 
or better than any print edition, but even then, while I might be 
willing to pay a little, I don't know if it would be enough to make this 
a viable fundraising method (unless the potential audience is quite large).

Quentin