Re: Discussing issues

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:25:16 +0100, Alan Hourihane 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 02:44:29PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The question I think, rather than how many CVS servers there are, is
>> whether we have a single path to making decisions.
>>
>> If you look at the X.org proposal with its two paths, this is the same
>> issue.
>>
>> For a concrete example, take the STSF/fontconfig thing.  STSF
>> developers felt like they were going down the right path to being part
>> of X and solving the problem. fontconfig developers felt same.
>>
>> So we have the problem that it isn't clear up front what the path to
>> becoming part of X is.
>>
>> But even once we resolve that, we have the problem that we could have
>> multiple technologies arriving via the same path, and need to sort
>> them out.
>>
>> A goal of a working X organization should be to have an answer to
>> questions of this nature. In short: how will we make decisions?
>>
>> When can I know that something is part of X, and who decides, by what
>> process?
>>
>> Multiple CVS trees and branches can be fine, as long as you have a
>> clear answer to this question.
>
> I really don't think your going to get a clear answer to this question.
>
> Open Source exists for the fact that people can't agree on how to do
> things. KDE vs Gnome, Unix vs Windows, and so on. Technologies compete.
> It's the way of life.
>
Forget just KDE vs Gnome, what about Windowmaker?  tvwm?  fvwm?  
Enlightenment?
One solution doesn't fit all scenarios.  Even Microsoft may call everything 
Windows
but they differentiate between 2000, CE etc. depending upon the platform.

-- 
I said to the almond tree, "Sister, speak to me of God.", and the almond 
tree blossomed. -- Nikos Kazantzakis

Easter is April 27th.