> "I don't know the whole problem domain in P2P but I'm wondering why > we couldn't start by using a very robust existing system and > perhaps make smaller adaptions to fit our needs - rather than > building something from scratch?" I just wanted to second Zack's comments here. Digg is a great site to look towards for best-practices in terms of some functionality, but I think licensing their code as our base would be unwise, even if we could get it. Their codebase is site-specific, customized and undocumented. It was also built by just a few people, meaning if you're not one of those people it's really a task to grok what's going on. Most importantly Digg is not a technology platform provider. As soon as our functionality diverts from what they do (and/or we need to start managing updates) it will quickly get complex and time-consuming. I think we're better off implementing a digg-like interface -- along with the other stuff we will need in terms of prior art, metadata, etc -- via an existing content management framework or platform. That way we can make it look and feel like P2P, hook in the additional functions that are necessary as per the spec, and be in a good position to extend the site with new features down the road. However, building a rating and ranking system with AJAXian voting and the like is a great idea for the P2P site. Luckily for us it's not terribly hard to emulate Digg's functionality on other more extensible platforms. cheers -josh
