Re: Discussing issues

Mike A. Harris writes:
 > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Egbert Eich wrote:
 > 
 > > >    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 think what Havoc's point boils down to one thing:
 > >The goal is to have one single forum where ideas and 
 > >implementation issues get discussed where everybody
 > >invloved in the entire chain from GUI toolkit down to
 > >the HW level participates to avoid duplication of 
 > >discussions. 
 > 
 > Would [email protected] or the forum list considered an
 > appropriate place for having such discussions?  Perhaps
 > high-level discussions here, and lower level implementation and
 > coding details on devel@?

You know, I had the same idea about the forum list :-)
devel probably would not be appropriate for the GUI folks
as it is to discuss low level development issues.

 > 
 > >So for instances if someone proposes an extension he wants to
 > >work on the HW people can say if they think this is feasable and
 > >fits into their part of the 'big picture' or not. It would help
 > >if people involved in leadership of XFree86 would participate.
 > 
 > Absolutely.  I think that is a large part of what is being asked
 > for is tighter cross project communication and investigation and
 > discussion of issues related to X11 and technology that
 > interfaces with or layers upon or around it.

Right. We may come to an agreement about this much easier than
if we keep pursuing the governance issue.

 > 
 > >The 'governance issue' is there to resolve matters if there is
 > >no consent. While I see some merits in the former, I have
 > >problems with the latter: I would think the chain from toolkit
 > >down to the HW can be broken into parts reasonable well so that
 > >decisions about feasability/acceptability can be made within
 > >each part. I don't think this has to happen or should happen
 > >within one single project.  Several projects can well cooporate
 > >on such effords.
 > 
 > I think if each of the various interested projects had a
 > dedicated Mr. Rogers[1] like PR liason person, much of the
 > problems would likely not exist neighbor.  ;o)
 > 
 > TTYL
 > 
 > 
 > [1] Yes, I realize not everyone will get the Mr. Rogers reference
 > depending on their location in the world.  ;o)  Mr. Rogers, whom
 > recently passed away, ran a children's show whom many people in
 > North America grew up with.  He was a very overly-friendly guy,
 > full of smiles to the point you might want to slap him.  ;o)
 > http://pbskids.org/rogers

Oh, yes, now as you mentioned it: I don't live in North America but
I remember Mr. Rogers from the time when I did. 
You said he passed away? How sad...

Egbert.