Re: Discussing issues

A delayed response:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:56:14 +0100  Alan Hourihane wrote:
>Subject: Re: [forum] Discussing issues
>
>On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 02:46:31PM -0400, Leon Shiman wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:22:42 -0400 G A Economou wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: [forum] Discussing issues
>> >
>> >On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:11:38 -0400, Havoc Pennington <[email protected]> 
wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >And you Havoc have this power to speak for X.org.  To make things happen
>> >there?  I mean, you guys can talk all day and make divisions all you 
want,
>> >but unless someone on the other side can bring it home, this whole 
>> >discussion
>> >is meaningless.
>> 
>> Speaking for myself, also an active member of X.Org, let me assure you 
that 
>> I am paying very close attention to this debate. I want to know how X.Org 
>> can be effective going forward.
>
>Leon,
>
>Did you read my original post at the very start of the forum list creation
>that was entitled "XFree86 5.0 TODO" ?

Thanks Alan, I did, and now found and just re-read it.

>
>This is some things that the core team talked about things we'd like to
>do for the next major release of XFree86. By no means is it a fixed list,
>additions, or removals can be done, so I'd like to encourage X.org to
>participate in the next major release and speak about what X.org has
>cooking too.

Thank you for the invitation. I want to, and expect that you will have a 
detailed (official) response from X.Org.  But I am concerned that this 
doesn't go far enough. And it does not touch the process issues. I am 
concerned that the scope of X which is now required to support current 
industry requirements (world-wide!) may have exceeded the limits of the 
mechanisms now in place. I am in awe of the what has already been by the 
current group of contributors. How do we maintain an effective dialog to 
explore possible, appropriate, changes, to accommodate our present needs?

For example, I need to know how MAS can be brought into this process.  X.Org 
has been a close participant and significant contributor to MAS development; 
and we are willing to do the work.

Leon 

>
>Alan.
>_______________________________________________
>Forum mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum