Re: Another teleconference partial edited transcript

On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 01:28:06AM -0500, Rich Murphey wrote:
>  
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Havoc Pennington
> > Really, what's to lose by having a phone conversation? An hour of
> > time? We've already spent a lot more time than that on these emails.
> 
> So you believe we have an obligation to discuss the issues?  That's 
> pretty hypocritcal because Keith was asked what the issues were
> and he refused to respond.
> 

I am not Keith, so I don't see how his actions relate to my hypocrisy.
As I said, I don't even know what his actions *were* in full.

The reason you should discuss the issues is that (in my opinion) we
should try to resolve them, and discussion is one way to do that.

This is very much not just about Keith. A lot of people want to see
the situation here resolved in the most-optimal-possible way.  A
long-term 50/50 X fork is not viable - we already had the XFree86
vs. X.org mess, adding another one is even worse. The Right Solution
is to get all the key hackers from all three groups in one community.
Other solutions are suboptimal.

My interest is in getting as close to the right solution as we can.
If we get stuck with suboptimal for a while, fine.  But I'm here
advocating that we try hard to do the optimal thing from the start, or
as soon as we can.

I don't use the word "obligation" because I think there's a difference
between saying "you should do something because it's a good idea" and
"you should do something because of rules or indebtedness or
authority." I am saying the former, and I understand "obligation" to
mean the latter.

Havoc