Re: Discussing issues

On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:14:17PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 10:59:46PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: 
> > I don't think anyone would reject obvious code that gives significant
> > improvement in how X works.
> 
> The hard part is something like STSF/fontconfig, or release schedules,
> where either the issue is not technology, or there is real technical
> disagreement on the definition of "improvement." 
> 
> As Owen said a while back, doing things by consensus works great,
> until you don't have consensus. Then you need a mechanism.
> 
> Projects that have mechanisms *also* work 99% by consensus. It's just
> that in the 1% case, something sane happens. vs. what we now see on
> this list, which I would describe as "not sane"
> 
> > > It just seems to me that where the code lives is not what people are
> > > (primarily) arguing about.
> > 
> > That's not been made clear at all.
> 
> Absolutely! That's why in this post:
> 
> http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-April/001106.html
> 
> I said "request did not really get clearly conveyed"
> 
> And why I felt that getting people on the phone would help everyone
> understand what each side considered to be the important issues.

BTW, as a non english speaker, i just was on the phone with a US citizen
about a totally unrelated issue, and i can say that i had much more
difficulties understanding him as if i had communicated by email or
personally. But then, maybe this is not an issue here.

Friendly,

Sven Luther