RE: Discussing issues

> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Vojkovich
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:56:02PM -0500, Rich Murphey wrote:
> > > I have heard multiple people voice a preference for pursuing 
> > > implementation rather than standards.
> > >
> > 
> > I want to be sure there's no misunderstanding - I'm not 
> looking for a 
> > standards-only project.  I'm looking for an umbrella for purposes of
> > a) coordination and b) efficiency, but it's an umbrella for free 
> > software projects and contributors, creating code that 
> eventually gets 
> > standardized. Not an umbrella for standards committees writing 
> > standards that eventually get implemented.
> 
>    Does this need to be a single organization with a single 
> government?  While I think XFree86 could serve as code-keeper 
> and help with implementation issues (provided we have the 
> expertise), I think putting the responsibility of being "the 
> umbrella" upon XFree86 would be too taxing of the project.

I agree.  As I was reading the menu of goals,
I couldn't help thinking "Wow, if we had that
much resources, we could write all kinds of
drivers, etc."

I also think that working relationships are far 
more important than formal processes or
organizational structure.  How often is it that
you find you must go outside the structure using
direct relationships to get things done?

Much of the perceived lack of broader goals
or structure can be attributed to lack of
people motivated in these areas, and
disinterest in organizational structure among
developers.  For instance, only reason we have
a BOD at all was to satisfy the X
Consortium's membership requirements.  If not
for that we would probably only have a core
team to this day.

Rich


Tim Allen virus: 
Appears helpful, only to destroy your hard
drive upon contact.