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

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> 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.

Well, first of all, all of this is a non-issue, since Tom has decided to
kill off the RSG. I fail to see how asking Tom to carry development on a
separate mailing list translates to "I have no intention of including
anything about the RSG into the UISG." Infact, just the opposite has
occured. The framework for the UISG skeleton was based directly around
ideas which were first proposed in the RSG. Ontop of that, Much of the
fleshwork (whatever ideas could be extracted from the RSG cleanly, use in
the UISG) of the upcoming Revision 0 stems from work done on the RSG.
About 4 hours ago, I just have a speech to a local Unix group here in town
which talked about this very issue....sooo...

PLEASE do me a favor, Gleef. Ask me to clarify something, if you dont
understand what I've been saying. I'd REALLY appreciate it if you didnt
hobble off with steam shooting out of your ears because you dont
understand something.

> 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.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again. The two frameworks (UISG and
RSG) were incompatible. The whole structure of the RSG is useles to us,
but the ideas which it contains are of some worth. Of those ideas which
are of some worth, only a percentage of them come with "no strings
attached", and can be encorporated into the UISG.

And, like I said, its a non-issue anyway. The UISG will likely absorb the
RSG and make whatever use of it we can. Its a poorly constructed document
which contains good ideas. The only problem is, you can have all the flesh
in the world -- Its useless, if your bones are made of Jell-O. The UISG
Project prefers releasing a document which begins with a firm, consistant,
organized foundation.

(the rest of your flame deleted...)
 
Bowie