Re: Questions To Answer

[Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>]

> Standards may be important in the future, but right now we don't have
> any, and have no plans to create any formally. What we have now is a

Miguel talks a lot about API's and paths to gnome 2.0. If you dont have
any plans for a consistent API shout now.

> Maybe standardization will be useful later, but that hardly makes the
> GNOME Foundation primarily a standards body. In fact, if there are
> standards, it would be better if they were promulgated by some
> independent entity, e.g. LSB.

The LSB doesnt care about GNOME. The GNOME foundation will be the body that
needs to help the LSB set standards. And without them GNOME is dead, defunct
gone and a waste of coding time. No vendor is going to commit to a random
moving target for the interfaces they rely on for their applications.

Miguel understands this, how come you cannot grasp some basics here.

> we do NOW, not to handle someone's vision of what we really ought to
> be doing.

What you want to do is make gnome work - yes

In which case you need to

o	Have a clear compatibility between vendors (thats an API standard)

o	Have clear compatibility between releases with a defined path
	for breakage (thats an API standard)

The rest of the work the foundation needs to do is marketing, fluff, meetings
between vendors and the like.

If the gnome foundation wont address API issues, compatibility and a standard
path then the vendors need to go and found a seperate gnome foundation 2 which
does