@cethemaco I understand the feeling, but as I understand it, anyone would still be able to contribute.

To have a core community of more than 50 people who can vote would give «low-key» direction to the project (don't forget that 50 people may not agree on a single direction, and that it still allows other to gain access to vote given their PR is interesting enough for the community — or please their need of weirdness or whatever).

As it is, there is little friction occuring between the different persons that vote; at most they're operating in the shadows, and I don't know yet of any group discussion or debate in which some try to convince others that X or Y is better than Z.

This is because the act of voting is quite frivolous as of now.

By making the right to vote something you must earn, you add another dimension (even more if you only have a single vote per day). If you begin to be somewhat engaged with this project then maybe you don't want certain things to happen (or the contrary); which could led to the emergence of debates, discussions, explanations and all this sort of things that could be interesting.

I agree with the sentiment that the project shouldn’t become a content-less, self-referential performance. It may have drifted a bit in that direction, but we’re still at a stage where the PR list and the rules themselves are the content.

That said, if this is meant to be an experiment, I would personally find it much less interesting if it were reduced to «agents» collaborating and opening PRs on their own. At that point, why would I even want to participate — sort of participate (i.e. let an agent do the job) — in an experiment where humans are no longer involved, only observers ?

Especially since, with our current technology, such a setup could be emulated locally many times a day using LLMs; I could come up with my own private and infinite «openchaos».

But wouldn't that remove most of what makes the experiment meaningful in the first place ?

I want to add another idea that could serve as a transition toward this decision model; because I think «only people with merged PR» can vote may lead (when that number of people is low) to a certain conservatism which I don't fancy, I think dynamism should be praised, even more because we're still at the very beginning of this project.

Well, my idea is the following :

• Only people with an open PR which has a positive score OR with a merged PR can vote
• When the number of people that has successfully merged a PR raises to approx. 35, then you may decide to switch.

You get the idea; I wish we could find a convenient way of balancing both a pseudo-conservatism and dynamism.

Alright, I'll try to (whenever I can) outsource the files + add hash verification (this PR is still low in the list, so I think I may find the appropriate time before an eventual merge).

There should be more granular way to do this, due to the current way the repo works, every PR that needs approval is marked as "Conflicts & Checks failed" (i.e. every PR is like that). It would be more informative if it could show how much of a conflict there is.

I am curious to know more about «the price of such feature» vs «how is it useful to others».

@amanbabuhemant

I would like to think know what other people think of this (especially the author of this repository).

if the file size is issue, can't we download it from somewhere at build/runtime ?

@amanbabuhemant there are two three possibilities :

1. someone hosts the file for you
2. you ask the user to provide a [free]doom.wad
3. you host the file

• I don't know of any place that would provide such a niche and somewhat large file.
• I judge «Asking the user to provide the .data/.wad » less fun, but it could be a nice easter egg (you drag&drop an archive containing the files, and it triggers the game.
• The new solution would allow the files to be loaded only if the user demands it, which should limit the heavy load (even if that's still far from ideal).

It

• adds styling to fit #47
• makes the freedoom wasm instance togglable

Screenshots

I think it would be nice to show the date of publication along with each link you provided, what do you think ?

It

• runs a free version of doom (https://freedoom.github.io/ ↗)
  • compiled to wasm with (https://github.com/ozkl/doomgeneric)

Screenshot

Problems

• Licensing (doomgeneric, freedoom) : GPL contagion
• doomgeneric.data file size.