|Subject:||Why Unanimous Consent Doesn't Work (Was: Re: why do we need change?)|
|Date:||Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:13:15 -0700|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 1.6a1 (Windows/20051010)|
Dennis Leeuw wrote:
Hi Gregory,To get to 1.0 I think a roadmap is needed. Looking at: http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?group_id=99Maybe someone should define which one of those tasks needs to be completed before GNUstep can be 1.0. And those points should be made more visible on the website, as to get peoples attention. All other stuff should be done in a post 1.0 branch or even not excepted, until after the 1.0 release.I believe that first and foremost we need to stop tying ourselves to theOpenStep specification. Yes, it is a good guideline, but I don't think weshould use it as a measure for the 1.0 anymore.Some of the AppKit classes in it are not used any longer and thus we really shouldn't see these as showstoppers for the 1.0. We need to come up with alist of things which should be accomplished prior to the 1.0 release ofGNUStep-gui. Once this is done, we should announce GNUstep 1.0 to the world.I agree with you that the OpenStep spec should not be leading anymore. I think GNUstep already has out grown the spec. It should now stand on its own feet, with own ideas and an its own direction. But before that can be accomplished we need to show the world we are ready to do that. And I think a 1.0 release would be a good marker. After that we have to think about the future for 2.0 and maintain 1.0.But who is going to take the lead to create a list of things to be done before we can claim 1.0. And a bigger hurdle for the GNUstep community how are we going to agree on it. Many of those discussions tend to go no where on the GNUstep lists.
Yes, and frankly this is a perfect opportunity to state that rule by unanimous or even near-unanimous consent is simply not a viable nor sustainable. People disagree. One cannot make everyone happy, nor should they try to in all instances. Currently, I feel the GNUstep project is trying to do so in all instances, with disastrous results.
At some point, it is sometimes necessary to simply *accept* the fact that certain people will be unhappy with certain decisions, which they may view to be controversial (but which many other, perhaps even the majority in many cases, may not).
Right now, this project isn't going anywhere, and while I do not contest the technical abilities of the leader, I do contest the lets-make-everybody-happy-and-if-we-cant-do-that-then-forget-about-it attitude which seems to be the norm instead of the exception. The project needs a stronger leader. Someone willing to make some tough decisions. The project's long-term health will be better as a result.
IMHO, as always.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|