Phil, heads up ;)

[Martyn]

Can I suggest the creation of sub-forums, as there seems to be a need for clarity. Perhaps so the forum structure looks like this...

Genome
............Genome Classic
............Genome v3.0
Folding
............Folding v3.0
............Distributed Folding
New Team Mates
Team Brag
Help
Smokin' Silicon Lounge

etc......

[phil]

hmmm, while I understand the need for clarity....won't a general genome and folding forum suffice? Will there be sufficient posts in each subforum to necessitate the need for another level in the forum hierachy? It's just another damn click in these slow forums to find the post you want.


damn, I need to lay off the beer....it is killing my brain cell :D

[Martyn]

Yeah I know what you mean, but folks round here seem to be screaming for a signpost. :rolleyes: :D

We could always amalgamate the forums once the projects get sorted. I dunno, I'll leave it with you, I'm happey enough with the way it is now, I just thougt it would appease some folks.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by phil
hmmm, while I understand the need for clarity....won't a general genome and folding forum suffice? Will there be sufficient posts in each subforum to necessitate the need for another level in the forum hierachy? It's just another damn click in these slow forums to find the post you want.


damn, I need to lay off the beer....it is killing my brain cell :D

Any discussion about DF is meaningless to FAH and vice-versa, just like a discussion of GAH is meaningless to either of them. There are 3 sets of stats, three sets of FAQs, 3 teams.

I'm not convinced that we will need to separate FAH3 from the others. Any discussion of folding by a member of a FAH3 team will be meaningful to a FAH2 member. Any discussion of genoming by a FAH3 member will be meaningful to a GAH member.

[pelligrini]

Originally posted by tril0Byte
Can I suggest the creation of sub-forums, as there seems to be a need for clarity. Perhaps so the forum structure looks like this...

Genome
............Genome Classic
............Genome v3.0
Folding
............Folding v3.0
............Distributed Folding
New Team Mates
Team Brag
Help
Smokin' Silicon Lounge

etc......
Maybe we ought to wait to see if there is a Classic or such, as far as I know there isn't one yet..

[Bruce]

Originally posted by pelligrini

Maybe we ought to wait to see if there is a Classic or such, as far as I know there isn't one yet..

Classic = V0.99

You're running it now.

[eldiablo]

Well, in another thread I kinda suggested:

Genome@home
Folding@home
Distributed Folding

but it didn't go over too well. :rolleyes:

[Bruce]

Well, I support it. That is what we need.

[Martyn]

Originally posted by eldiablo
Well, in another thread I kinda suggested:

Genome@home
Folding@home
Distributed Folding

but it didn't go over too well. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know and I do understand Phils reluctance. Like he says, it can just add more clicks to what is already a deplorably slow forum at times. I think Picard have everything grouped under "humanitarian projects" and it seems to work OK for them. I'm not sure we need a top level forum for each project - But, on the other hand, I don't really see the harm in creating sub-forums either. It may be more clicks, but at least you would know there is relevance - I dunno. I'm generally aginst adding extra forums unless there is a definite need, but we could also merge them back at a later date if we do get come clear genome/folding team direction.

I can understand people wanting to diversify our to folding and genome, but it seems crazy to have the team split up in different folding and different genome projects. I think as soon as there is some clarity from stanford, we should make a team choice as to which projects to officially support. We're spread put way too thin at the moment.

[X-Calibur]

Originally posted by tril0Byte


but we could also merge them back at a later date
Uh-oh... I think he is having a relapse, quick, Nurse, get the biggest needle... :D

[Bruce]

Originally posted by tril0Byte
I can understand people wanting to diversify our to folding and genome, but it seems crazy to have the team split up in different folding and different genome projects. I think as soon as there is some clarity from stanford, we should make a team choice as to which projects to officially support. We're spread put way too thin at the moment.

The diversity in folding is already a fact. Split the topics. (I don't care at what level.)

There is only one genome project - - do nothing.

There are 3 distinct sites hosting our teams. If I say TGC is ahead of or behind, say, [H}, there are answers. If I pass you in the stats, you need to look 3 places (not counting 3-rd party restatements of the same stats.)

[Not that I recommend it, but at ARS, they give the teams different names -- reflecting the fact that even though they may have overlapping membership, they are independent teams.]


Our Team Roster at GAH (http://genomeathome.stanford.edu/teams/The_Genome_Collective.html)

Our Team Roster at FAH (Stanford) (http://folding.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/teampage.detailed?q=131)

And (depending on what name we're going by today):rolleyes: Our team roster at DF (http://distributedfolding.org/teampages/team175.html)

[Martyn]

Originally posted by Bruce


There is only one genome project - - do nothing.

[/URL]

ATM, but there will shortly be two, the stats between G@H classic and G@H 3.0 wont be merged and will essentially be a completely different race. I mean, that's what we are talking isn't it? How many races we are running and where.

[pelligrini]

I'm not sure if that's the case tril.

From the Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genomeathome/message/4633)
From: "Stefan Larson" <smlarson@s...>
Date: Thu May 23, 2002 6:12 pm
Subject: Re: [genomeathome] Re: FAH 3 & GAH 2 credits separated?

Hi,

Just a quick update to address these issues. Our current thinking is that
Genome@h... users will be able to run the F@h... client and have the option
to only recieve G@h... core workunits and have these workunits count towards
the original Genome@h... project stats. This way, Genomers can run the new
client and still stay solely within the Genome@h... project as far as
workunits and user/team stats are concerned. I think this type of solution
would go a long way to addressing many of the concerns we've heard.

Thanks - Stefan

[Martyn]

Ahhh, missed that one pell - I'm a couple of days out of date then. :rolleyes: :D

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Stefan comes up with. Or is that a firm "this is what we're gonna do..." from him?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by tril0Byte
ATM, but there will shortly be two, the stats between G@H classic and G@H 3.0 wont be merged and will essentially be a completely different race. I mean, that's what we are talking isn't it? How many races we are running and where.

Sorry, That's not true.

Stanford has stated clearly that there will only be two stats engines: The continuation of the GAH stats, and the continuation of the FAH2 stats. We alreadly have a TGC team on each of those boards, so we're NOT talking about any new races.

The point is that we also have a (or should I say, at least one) team on DF. DF has nothing to do with FAH. Those two projects are solving difference science. Just because they both have the word "folding" in their name doesn't make them the same project.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by tril0Byte
Ahhh, missed that one pell - I'm a couple of days out of date then. :rolleyes: :D

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Stefan comes up with. Or is that a firm "this is what we're gonna do..." from him?

It is as firm as Stefan ever is.:rolleyes: (He has been known to retract earlier statements, such as a due-date for GAH2.) The PandeGroup has adopted a new bb (and intends to phase out the yahoo bb's) which is intended to cover both GAH and FAH. There has been a fair amount of discussion there, too.

There was some talk of merging statistics, but NOBODY wanted it and it quickly died. Since the functionality of the FAH3 client is being discussed, there are more project leaders than just Stefan. They all seem to feel that keeping both existing stats and sets of teams makes sense.