External Link Policies - Dev Directory

[DavidMann10k]

I think we should come up with some rules for how we decide what links are appropriate for our "Developer Directory". My goal is for these links to go to active, relevant material.

Here are some suggestions:

• Must not be "under construction"
• Must resolve without redirection
• Must be relevant to the subject of game development

[mgrider]

I agree with all of these suggestions. I also think the businesses must be registered in (or primarily focused in) MN.

I know Zach J. expressed interest in moving this entire list to icecold.games, and I would definitely be fine with that. (But haven't seen any action on it actually happening yet.)

[DavidMann10k]

So if we resolve to use ICG as our directory could we just link to https://icecold.games/#communities and call it a day? I'd be fine with that. If we wanted to migrate some of the contacts I think that could happen without too much trouble too.

[Mark-LaCroix]

I'd prefer the directory live on igdatc.org but I agree that there isn't much use having both, especially since they're both in a constant state of being out of date.

I also agree that we should limit it to actual companies with official websites. "Actual" is a fuzzy term, and I don't want to be too literal about it, but Slack/Discord/Twitter is a better place to find individual developers in the community. I don't like the idea of having a directory of developers that unavoidably leaves out a lot of people, and I don't love the idea of including things like personal portfolio websites (but I could be convinced otherwise).

I proposed a inline form so people can add companies to the page (with approval) in #30 , but another solution to keep things updated would be to take the eternally hit-or-miss crowdsourcing aspect completely out of it, and assign a board member or volunteer whose job it is to keep this page updated. Every 6 months or so (or on some other, but rigid, schedule) that person would commit to spending a few hours researching/asking around/updating/pruning the list, with a quick follow up in that month's board meeting.

[mgrider]

So if we resolve to use ICG as our directory could we just link to https://icecold.games/#communities and call it a day? I'd be fine with that. If we wanted to migrate some of the contacts I think that could happen without too much trouble too.

I think you mean https://icecold.games/#business (not #communities), but my main concern there is that the list on ICG is not categorized at all. It's a wall-of-text. When I originally said Zach J. expressed interest in moving it over there, I should probably have given more context. He wanted to move it over there, I said I thought it should have categories. I'm not sure if he agreed or disagreed, but nothing happened as a result. I think it's probably harder to maintain with categories, but much easier to read. I also think we probably have a problem right now where some companies fit into multiple categories, but currently we're picking just one.

I could imagine wanting to turn the links into data in Jekyll, as opposed to markdown, and that would allow us to do things a lot more flexibly. (Multiple categories per company, and generating the category lists dynamically, maybe with open/close tabs.)

I agree that there isn't much use having both, especially since they're both in a constant state of being out of date.

I kind of disagree with this. I'm 100% sure there are people who find igdatc.org and have no idea about icecold.games. (And probably vice-versa.) Nothing is stopping us from just linking from one to the other, of course, but I have no idea how often icecold.games gets updated, and at least with igdatc.org we will now know exactly how stale our data is.

I don't like the idea of having a directory of developers that unavoidably leaves out a lot of people, and I don't love the idea of including things like personal portfolio websites (but I could be convinced otherwise).

I agree with not wanting to leave folks out. I would be happy to add portfolio websites! In other words, I don't think we should use our own definition of "business".

I think the idea with "actual websites" is just exactly what David outlined. They should be websites not proxys for other things. (I took "Under construction" to mean things more like domain registrar placeholder sites and stuff like that. If you have a website, and it's plastered with black-and-yellow construction worker gifs, I'm okay with that.)

I proposed a inline form...

I don't really like the idea of an inline form (anyone can of course issue a PR for the website itself!), but I'll comment on that over at #30. I do like very much the idea of making it a task to audit these ~once per year or so.