Re: Random thoughts on this elections (was Re: Candidacy (Michael Meeks))

On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 12:34:40AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >  I am afraid you are wrong. Board will be eventually forced to make
> > technical decisions, as there will be some disagreements on direction
> > and standards.
> Then there will soon be multiple gnomes. Which would be sad. The board isnt
> something that carries with it the right to make such decisions nor in general
> does a board have enough respect. 

  Tend to agree here but sometime interdependancies are better handled
at a board level, i think that's an exception to your general rule.

> A good standards body sets minimal standards, you define the data format or
> the protocol you NEVER NEVER define the implementation. 

  yes all experiences I have seen about reference implementations turned
into a disaster :-)

> If you qualify the board to do this you will cause resentment, if they attempt
> to use the power they will tear the project into pieces. So its much better to
> leave the status quo. At most mandate the Gnome Foundation as having a job
> in 'convening open accountable meetings and discussions where it is in the
> interest of the gnome project to discuss contradictory views on the solution
> of a problem'

  Usually a board provide 'advices', getting further is hard because you
loose the workforce. It may be good to not rule out that possibility but
it's clear that getting consensus within the technical groups is the normal


Daniel Veillard w3 org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | Linux XML libxml WWW
Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Gnome rpm2html rpmfind  | RPM badminton Kaffe

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]