Re: COMMENTARY: The War, or Has Anyone Actually Read ESR?

[Tom Vogt <tom lemuria org>]

thanks for your long and insightful mail. I will comment on two areas where
I think clarification is needed.

Chris Jantzen <chris@maybe.net> wrote:
> needed here. In the coder community there is an evil thing, which I
> have seen referred to as the Code Fork.

there is a special case here, as I see it.

there were about five or six (if memory serves correctly) people actually
very disappointed with the way bowie wanted to keep everything secret until
he considered the time come. that was the beginning, I was just the first of
those five or six to post something.
but so much for the background. the reason why I think your argument is,
though quite valid, not appropriate here is that at the time the whole RSG
issue started, there simply was not code that could be forked. it's more
like GNU NT 5 - people creating something because they're fed up with
waiting for it to show up.

it was aimed at from the start to merge the documents later, and throughout
the initial phases of the RSG, bowie and I have had some e-mail exchange to
make sure this happens.


> Second, let's just get to work and produce something. Let Bowie hunker
> down and pump something out. I strongly believe that Tom and his group
> should create their own mailing list to develop what is, in reality, a
> seperate project.

I cannot speak for anyone else here, but for me, the RSG was never intended
as a seperate project. that was why I talked to bowie before he went on to
flame my toes of about how the results of it can be integrated into his
document, how he can harvest and how everyone can profit. that was the
intention and seperating these things will - IMHO - only lead to a much
reduced performance for both documents, plus more and more unbridgeable
differences as I doubt many people will subscribe to both lists.


I do agree with your notion that two projects on one list aren't the way to
go. it's just that I don't see the RSG as a project, and neither bowie's
hidden document. I see the gnome style guide as the project in the very same
way that I'd still consider it the same house, no matter if you enter
through the front or back door.


in other words: I don't want to split off because that would violate the
whole intention I (and maybe others) have had with the RSG. I would rather
drop it as a collection of ideas and hope that when the UISG is there, you
copy from it instead of reinventing the wheel and going through the whole
discussion again.

I fear that it'll not happen, though. although there was a detailed and
in-depth discussion about the compliance levels, for instance, bowie decided
to invent his own scheme instead and has kept it up to now even though any
and all feedback he received was negative. I'm not so much complaining about
bowie (he damn has the right to do things his way), but try to illustrate
that the original point of disappointment - low feedback and some
frustration about the way one has the impression(!) that one's contributions
go straight to /dev/null - is still there.


I suggest that instead of barraging the list with out-of-context questions
the list stops for a moment and decides on those points of the RSG that are
generall accepted to be moved over into bowie's style guide. this is the
"harvesting" process I talked about above. it wasn't meant to happen this
way, but alas, it's much better than going through all of this again in a
week or two.



-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
		-- Henry Spencer