Re: "PROPOSAL:" ...harvest the RSG first..nice try.

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

Tom:

I'd *really* appreciate it if you didnt try to pass off proposals, making
them look like they were delivered by us. None of the maintainers want (or
need) to harvest anything from your project. Thanks for confusing the
mailing list in the process, tho.

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Tom Vogt wrote:

> I'm happy that after a long time of silence finally something is happening
> to the UISG.
> 
> I'm not so happy with this barrage of out-of-context questions, though. I'm
> also extremely unhappy with the suggested splintering of the list. it would
> sure help to get some critics out of here, bowie, but it would also waste so
> much effort that I don't think the project can afford it.
> 

One more time, for the people who didn't read the last response..

By releasing a random "barrage of out-of-context questions" (ha), we can
then fill in the gapswe 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. Reas on..

Here's a hint for you: Constructing a CONSISTANT style guide is not a "top
down" process. You don't begin with the preamble, and end with the
appendix. Development of the internals of such a document is done largely
in parallel with emphasis on 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 talk of application compliancy.
Talk of proper window geometry leads to talk of windowmanager compliancy.
Talk of proper notification policy leads to talk of configuration issues.

Get the picture, now? 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. 

> 
> I propose that we stop here and before starting another round of questions
> turn to the RSG draft 4 and harvest what we can. that means we should find
> out which points in there are generally agreed upon and move those into
> bowie's guide. this way we can save a lot of effort, don't have to through
> all the discussions (and flaming) again, and get a lot of flesh on the
> UISG's bones quickly.

1) For the #398th time.. Its not "Bowie's guide", Tom. 

2) This is a mailing list. Not a time-share condo.

3) Heh. So now its "I propose that we ignore the UISG." Nice..I'm afraid
   we're not quite done yet, Tom. Might wanna come back in October, when
   development ceases, and the final tweaking is underway. 

   In the meantime, you've been offered your own mailing list, and your
   own webspace. Hell, -WE- (The UISG!) have offered you a piece of OUR
   webspace, just to clear the extra noise off this mailing list! If you
   really DO agree, that nothing can get done when several guides are
   trying to use the same bandwidth for development purposes, then why
   arent you taking advantage of the offers? If you were really that
   concerned with the development of the RSG, you would be JUMPING at the
   chance.


 
> after that we can easily declare the RSG dead because it would have served
> the purpose it was invented for.

In my eyes, it already has served its purpose.. It completely re-affirmed
my beliefs about how to go about building a guide, and how NOT to go about
building a guide.


Bowie