Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Mutopia's biggest weakness is not that it is missing new contributions
> but rather that the existing contributions become unusable.
>
> So what's needed is:
> a) automated run of convert-ly to all following available stable versions
> b) an interface for people to say "PDF for upgraded file looks ok"
> c) an interface for people to fix up files that fail after convert-ly or
>    are unnecessary complex given new LilyPond features.
> d) grading/voting mechanisms for scores/contributors
> e) obsoleting files when they have been converted and the version is
> really outdated (like, beyond Debian Stale from one year ago)
>
> At the current point of time, Mutopia is a large bitrot graveyard.  If
> one makes it easy to crowdsource and/or automate the _maintenance_ of
> files and make the various versions available, it might become a lot
> more active.

Oh, and perhaps let people associate update/entry work with bitcoin and
Paypal addresses so that downloaders can easily transfer a suggested
fee, and that one can, say, point to an IMSLP source of public domain
photocopies and say "having them in LilyPond 2.16 would be worth $x to
me".  Or "having this 2.12 source in 2.18 and using the new ??? syntax
would be worth $x to me", with the ability of multiple people to pitch
in.

The success of LilyPond-based projects like SCORA
<URL:http://www.flanderstoday.eu/innovation/leuven-orchestra-uses-tablet-follow-music-scores>
ultimately depends on a reasonable availability of workers who are
willing to prepare LilyPond scores for a fee.

Without that, the projects don't scale.

-- 
David Kastrup