Re: Clearing up some things (plus flame retardant # 2)

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Saturday, August 01, 1998 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Clearing up some things (plus flame retardant # 2)


>Dan Kaminsky <effugas@best.com> wrote:
>> >excuse my stupidity - but if you consider an irc conference "the general
>> >public", then what in hell is this list?
>>
>> Not the general public.
>
>I see.
>
>you DO realize that people really interested in gnome-gui would probably
>have subscribe to gnome-gui-list?


you DO realize that people really interested in gnome-gui would probably
also subscribe to one or two other mailing lists and not have time to devote
themselves to Yet Another Flood Of Email?  You're a european, you do realize
that every mailing list costs money because of time spent online downloading
messages?  If word ever gets to me about a GIMP design conference, I'm
there, but I'm not subscribing to gimp-dev because *I'M JUST TOO BUSY IN
GNOME-GUI*:-).

>I don't mind irc conferences. I just mind suddenly calling a DEDICATED
>mailing list an aside and a random conference the place for important
>things. I really have a problem with that attitude.


I have no problem with a project maintainer opening up the project a little
to the general public.  What are you saying, Tom?  That only the list can
see what's been brewing?  That you have to subscribe to know the future?
:-)  Chill out, kick back, lets see what the slashdotters and the
freshmeaters and the rest of the Linux crew think should be part of Gnome.
Who knows, maybe THEY'LL have a better way to organize apps.

>whoops? I already posted a first draft of my version, so where does this
>weird argument suddenly come from?
>
>plus I'll post a second draft in a few hours.


Like I said, you haven't yet posted a second draft.  You're waiting to
finish it, because you don't want to put something up that doesn't work as a
gestalt.

>> However, once a unified frame work is decided on, I really hope everybody
>> settles their differences--
>
>that's what we're aiming at, ain't it? taking the best out of everything.


Two frameworks are bad, just like two language/toolkit/namespace
combinations are bad.  They prevent a working, non-bloated gestalt.