Timothy Swenson writes: > First, let me say this: Waahoooo!!!
Seconded! > Ok, now that that has been said, I've got some ideas of how this process > might go. > > I'd recommend that a committee be formed to oversee the further direction <> > The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due > to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be > Simon Goodwin. I know that he is not as active as others, but he really I agree 100%, except from the totally opposite point of view! Anyone who objects to QXL.win files, mdv images, zip-files! (viz Quanta, Dec 2001), not to mention PE, and god knows what else, is going to be far too distracted to concentrate on the job. No offence intended, but I think there are others better qualified for the task, ie Marcel (who has a fair chance of taking SMSQ/E on into the '60s) and Jochen. Whether theyd also be willing is another matter. One can only hope. Open Source or not, I do believe this case does require some sensitivity as the whole project could so easily be hijacked or end in anarchy. The QL scene could now split in three ways or more, with Qdos Classic, Minerva and SMSQ/E all competing for attention. How to deal with the potential dispersal of effort should be carefully considered. This may require psychology and political acumen as much as technical ability. As for collecting money, Ive already paid up for SMSQ/E at least four times in full. Id naturally be happy to pay for source code and future developments. Per
