Re: Kannel is suffering

Jørgen Thomsen wrote:

> Dear Aarno Syvänen and Stipe Tolj. 
> 
> Thank you, I appreciate your comments. They are fully validating my observations.
> 
> You are busy preserving the 'pure' design instead of thinking forward.
> In that way Kannel will die.
> 
> You may distingush between 'lowest common denominator' and 'abstraction', but, please,
> explain why the two concepts are equal in Kannel ? 
> 
> Frequently the efforts seen here are not to abstract, but to turn down suggestions,
> because they are not present in all protocols. That is not abstraction. That is backward
> thinking. Kannel would benefit from some real abstraction efforts with a forward view of
> supporting all protocols to each their fullest extent.

now, first of all. This "policy", if I'm free to proclaim it in that way, is not 
invented by people maintaining Kannel. It's "invented" by various other open 
source projects where not only software engeneering aspects come in play, but 
also politics, in some sence and manner. (I have a lot of real-life examples for 
those politics paths and mature practices while actively in the Apache group and 
developing process). So I obviously know from which perspective I'm talking.

I don't see any equation of 'lowest common denominator' and 'abstraction'. We 
never put this equation to a rule here in the group. There is only a generic 
policy which implies to the fraze "don't make it the messy way". Make a 
productive suggestion in a way that we can "see" how *you* tend to get the 
involved issues to be incorporated to Kannel, and let's discuss about them. I 
don't see why we should waste too much effort in politics here again. It's like 
in real-time politics, you have an opinion, we/I have an opionion. By stating 
how "dare narrow-minded" we are, you won't gain anything. Not to mention that 
this is basic rule of diplomacy. By applying for- and backward-talking of 
certain issues, you will get to the aim, and we too. So the basic essence of 
this is. Show us *why* the things you say (concerning factual issues, hence 
coding implementations) is more "worth", then not to add it. If you convince us 
by factual issues, we're always willing to "change" our position (like it tends 
to happen in real-time politics).

Ok, I agree in some limited sence to your last paragraph. But I refraze, it's up 
to *you* to draw the benefits of your opinion, in such a way that you 
generically convince by practical issues, not by generical politics frazes.

Stipe

mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Vogelsanger Weg 80
40470 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

phone: +49.211.74845.0
fax: +49.211.74845.299

mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de
http://www.wapme-systems.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------