Suggestion for XFree86

> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Carl Worth wrote:
> 
>>The largest barrier seems to me that membership rights and
>>responsibilities are not defined, (at least not publicly), nor is
>>the process for obtaining membership.
> 
> "Membership" is a non-issue.  It was only an issue in the old closed
> development days.  The original reason for having members at all
> was so that XFree86 developers could be involved in the X Consortium's
> X11R6 development process back in 1994, and the X Consortium didn't
> allow for individuals to participate.  There is no reason for a
> general XFree86 membership, and there hasn't been for a long time.
> The recent opening of the devel list and removal of member-only
> mailing lists eliminated the last "privilege" of membership.  None
> of the general membership never had any formal voting rights anyway.
> 
> I'm at a loss as to why people even ask about XFree86 membership
> anymore.

I was told that at least one chip manufacturer provided docs under 
conditions that allowed xfree86 members to have access.

Now that xfree86 member does not exist, the documentation cannot be 
shared. Very clever.

Given this, I would suggest that memberships is very definitely an issue.

I am currently stymied by this problem wrt problems with my PC's video card.

Tim Josling