Re: Discussing issues

On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:46:57PM -0400, David Wexelblat wrote: 
> If Keith had just resigned from the Core Team, gone off and done some stuff,
> told some people about it, etc, the free market would have taken care of
> itself. I believe this is the point David, Alan, Mark, a couple of others,
> have tried to make.
> 
> This whole governance thing is a smokescreen, IMHO.

So I'd personally like to move past who did what and who is the jerk,
and simply ask how we are going to ship an X server in the next year
or so and then regularly after that, which both contains new
innovations/APIs/features and has good drivers and
stability/release-process. What is our X implementation going forward,
and how do we make it good. How do we coordinate all the interests
here in a way that creates critical mass and a powerful development
engine.

The reason Keith matters in all this is that there is this long list
of code next to his name. In practice, if he's gone then so is this
long list of important contributions.

Now I'm sure someone is going to follow up and say well that's Keith's
fault, but here is the thing: I don't care whose fault it is, I just
don't want to be screwed by having to choose between the drivers and
the features.

Can't someone in the room be the bigger man so to speak, stand up and
fix the problem.

And then as a side note, why don't we address the X.org relationship
while we're at it, and just get X cleaned up and fixed as a whole.

I don't think governance is a total smokescreen; I think it's possible
that an organization that brought everyone together would need to give
everyone a voice proportional to their contribution. If my module I
maintain is in a release, I'd probably expect to have a voice in
deciding things about the release. Otherwise it's hard to get people
to sign up. People in general, I don't mean Keith specifically.

I don't think that's the only possible path forward, but I do think
some proactive work is needed to bring things together here.
Any suggestions are good.

> Please note, Havoc, that I do not ascribe any of this to you. In fact, I
> find your positions, questions, arguments, etc, to be the most lucid and
> most relevent of anything that has gone on here - the root issues - and I
> hope we can move past the governance issues to really address these issues.
> I personally don't have much of a leg to stand on to influence these
> discussions, other than to try to move them forward...

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Havoc