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

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Tom Vogt wrote:
> 
> 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.

In the beginning, nobody understood the need to develop this document in
an openm, but controlled fashion. Now, people are beginning to realize
that a comittee of 300 people cant make a document. Development of such a
document has to be maintained by a relatively small group of people who
CONSTANTLY revise the document based upon the input and directions of the
people, if you want it done right -- That is, if you want a logical,
coherent, sensical, solid, *consistant* document. Not just a "style
guide".
 
> 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.

Im at the point now, that given what I see in your style guide, I *dont*
want it merging with the UISG, personally. I think I speak for the other
co-maintainers on this issue as well.. Doing so will produce a final style
guide of lesser quality than what we could have delivered with the UISG
alone. I dont mean this as a slam against Tom -- Its just that its even
now, to me at least, abundantly clear that the UISG is going to be a far
more consistant document than tom's project. To merge the two projects
would be to introduce inconsistancy into the UISG, and I dont want that.

However..

If the consensus is (here on the mailing list, conferences, etc) that the
two documents should merge into some sort of formal comprimise, then it
will be done, regardless of whether or not I think its a good idea.


> > 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 find your statement that the "RSG was never intended to be a seperate
project." a little hard to believe, Tom.

If you dont think people will follow you to your own mailing list, then
start contributing to the UISG, instead of continuing to fabricate a
separate document on your own. We dont mind.

> 
> 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.

Ok, for the 397th time, Tom..

The UISG is NOT "Bowie's Hidden Document". Got it? The UISG is being
maintained by three people, with major revisions delivered into the hands
of the public for review and scrutiny on a steady, weekly basis. Remember
that, Tom. PLEASE.

If you believe that two projects on one mailing list aren't the way to go,
then go ahead and use the other mailing list that has been provided for
you. What are you waiting for?

I dont know about you, but we have work to do here.

> 
> 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.

We're not going to have a problem generating our own document, so long as
we have enough eyeballs pointed in our direction. The UISG relies directly
off the input generated by the mailing list & conference participants.
This process grinds to a halt when a second or third guide tries to occupy
bandwidth on the same mailing list.

You have been provided with your own mailing list, for your project, Tom.
You're welcome to advertise for readership on THIS mailing list as much as
you like. Such things dont distract us.

> 
> 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.

Hahah.. "all the feedback he recieved was negative".. Boy, you've sure got
a grip on things. Try again. As I pointed out before, I've had the exact
same argument about Compliancy Level layout close to a year ago, and back
then as well, most people wanted to have things ordered with Level 5 being
the pinnacle. After much debate and reasoning, slowly, people began to see
the inherent logic in what I was proposing. That the pinnacle be Level 1,
not 5. Slowly, but surely, it finally clicked in everyone's heads that it
was the right way to go about doing it, for now, and for the future. Im
seeing the same thing happen here on the mailing list.

> 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.

This isnt "My way", Tom. Its the way experience dictates. Experience
dictates that Level 1 is top, Level 5 is bottom, and the other way
inevitably leads to one giant fustercluck for whoever revises the levels
in the future.

PS.. Good luck naming your levels "Level 0" , "Level -1", and "Level -2"
in the future. I'm sure the coders will love it. Yeesh.

  
> 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.

We have no interest in harvesting chaff. 

If we want answers, we go to the public. Thats what we're doing. We have
a flesh revision of the UISG due for publication on Saturday. By
"releasing a barrage of out-of-context questions" , we can then fill in
the gaps we need before we go public with Revision 0. The reason why it
seems "out of context" to you, is because you've never developed a style
guide before, Tom. Read on..

Here's a hint for you: Constructing a consistant style guide is not a "top
down" process. You dont begin with the premble, and end with the appendix.
Development of such a document is done largely in parallel with emphasis
on the more central/important aspects. What appears to you to be a random,
confusing barrage of "out-of-context" questions is in reality a very
deliberately chosen set of questions meant to spawn development in other
directions.

Talk of menu line standardization leads to applicantion compliancy.
Talk of proper window geometry leads to talk of windowmanager complaincy.
Talk of proper notification policy leads to configurability issues.

Get the picture? The UISG is spawning development of concepts that we're
going to need to address down the line. The data from the public will
already BE there by the time we need it. 

Although I find it amusing that you think people should go to your project
first, look at it, and try to apply its concepts to the UISG. I cant help
but have a mental picture in my head of a 5 year old trying to pound a
square peg through a round hole...


Bowie