Re: RSG, draft 4 -- Move it to a separate mailing list.

[Gleef <gleef capital net>]

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Bowie Poag wrote:
> 
> Tom:
> 
> A) Glad to see you've adopted the UISG's Compliance Level layout. One more
>    checkmark on the list.
> 
> B) Please move discussion of your project to the separate mailing list
>    that was offered to you; And feel free to advertise on this list for
>    users to subscribe to it. That way, we both have focus for the two
>    projects.

The RSG is a continuing effort which represents the collective ideas of
many of us here on the list, as well as the best ideas of the official
GNOME Style Guide (i.e. http://www.gnome.org/devel/sg/).  It was
understood from comments that you made that the ideas presented in the RSG
would be incorporated into your document.  By comments made by you
earlier, and this one, it seems clear to me that you have no intention of
doing this.

If you are truly splitting your work apart from our efforts, I am very
disappointed, as this will severely harm the development of a good GNOME
Style Guide v2.0.  Due to signal-to-noise ratio, I certainly will not
subscribe to two Style Guide lists.  I also see no reason why the RSG
work, which was a spontanious result of several people's work on this
list, has any obligation to move.  If you don't want to see RSG discussion
on the list that you are discussing your UISG on, by all means feel free
to move it to another list.

Now, if you are forcing a development fork you are forcing users to
choose.  As you know, I have tried my best to contribute to the UISG, but
all I see on the UISG web site are three large pictures of the developers,
carefully shaded graphic representations of shadowed helvetica text for
titles, and no content.  In fact I saw a note implying that there will be
no content until October.

In the RSG I see an incomplete document that is advancing at a very fast
pace, based on historical GNOME literature, along the lines of GNOME
development.  This project is solidly in the spirit of the GNOME
Manifesto, which says "GNOME is open in the full sense of the word. It
seeks to impose only that order neccessary for consistency."

I strongly feel that the RSG is the right way to do it.  My contributions
are more likely to be appreciated.  I believe it is more likely to produce
a style guide that is as cohesive, powerful, flexible and inclusive as a
GNOME Style Guide should be.

If I am forced to choose between working on one or the other, I will have
to choose the RSG.  I will be very disappointed if I have to do this,
since I think the whole effort will be helped by cooperation, but your
recent statements have made me fear that you will force a development
fork.

Regrets,
-Gleef