Re: [abcusers] The abc committee
Richard Robinson said - Perhaps that's because you seem to spend 90% of your posts getting aggrieved and appearing to dislike everyone else. That's odd. I thought I spent 90% of my posts trying to explain what I meant, as patiently as I could, to people who seemed to be prepared to attack me, often quite abusively, without bothering to read what I actually said. I think abc is a wonderful invention, that's why I'm still here, but it is in danger of being wrecked by discoordinated development and lack of cooperation between those who claim to be its protectors. The only thing that seems to unite them is criticism from outside their inner circle so perhaps I am at least providing that service. The abc standard has not advanced at all in the last year. It remains to be seen what the committee will achieve but I'm not optimistic. I just hope that realise they have taken on responsibilities not power. Bryan Creer
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee
Just an amusing little story well known in my home country. It has *absolutely* nothing to do with this issue, of course ;) Two members of the Norwegian parlament, an oldtimer and a young newbie, were sitting beside each other during a really heated debate. As the battle raged at its worst, the youth turned exitedly to his fellow and said "now is the time to speak!" whereupon the old hand calmy replied "now is the time to shut up". I'll say no more. Frank Richard Robinson wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Nordberg said - John and Laura decided to recruit committee members among the most active posters at abcusers. Strange. They didn't ask me. Perhaps that's because you seem to spend 90% of your posts getting aggrieved and appearing to dislike everyone else. I don't think I'd want to work with you either. -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee
Richard Robinson writes: | On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Frank Nordberg said - | John and Laura decided to recruit committee members among the most | active posters at abcusers. | | Strange. They didn't ask me. | | Perhaps that's because you seem to spend 90% of your posts getting | aggrieved and appearing to dislike everyone else. I don't think I'd want | to work with you either. Now, now! Actually, a more pointed reply might have been to use this as an opportunity to debunk the suggestions of Bryan and a few others that the developers are a clique that ignores non-developers. If you look at the new mailing list of the "abc cabal", you'll find that it deals primarily with procedural questions, ultimately with the problem of improvements taking years of rambling and inconclusive discussions. But the actual "content" messages have still been here in the abcusers list. This is because the developers, as always, have wanted their ideas to be discussed by the entire user community (or at least as much of the community as is willing to subscribe to this list). There used to be a separate "abc developers" mailing list. It died out for the same reason. It was open to everyone, but was roundly ignored by the developers. They all preferred to post their ideas where the non-programmer musicians could read them and comment. This pretty much shoots down the idea that the developers don't listen to mere users. If this were true, why would the developers not use a private list to discuss extensions? Why would they continue to send their ideas to the entire "abc users" mailing list? The idea that users are ignored is probably a misinterpretation of something else: Most of the extensions to abc have been because some developer(s) had a musical need, started a discussion which was inconclusive, and then went ahead and implemented what he/she thought was the best idea. Sometimes two people did this, but they each interpreted the non-conclusions differently and implemented different things. Some of them thought that their version was the consensus. The problem with this has been that, while we did get long, rambling discussions, we rarely actually reached any conclusions. Then Chris Walshaw suggested that we start working on an official new version. This triggered a number of repeats of earlier discussions, which also didn't seem to be leading to an actual new standard. The new "committee" is mostly an attempt to do something about this, and to push for real decisions and actions. But it's pretty obvious that most (if not all) of the participants still want the "content" discussions to be in the open, with input from anyone who has an opinion. That's why most of the traffic has been here rather than in the more restricted new mailing list. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee
The problem with this has been that, while we did get long, rambling discussions, we rarely actually reached any conclusions. Then Chris Walshaw suggested that we start working on an official new version. This triggered a number of repeats of earlier discussions, which also didn't seem to be leading to an actual new standard. I spent several years on an ANSI (American National Standards) committee. We were responsible for the ASCII coding standard and other similar standards. We too, spent what seemed like endless hours on procedural issues instead of content issues. We had no/ few internet connections at the time so we had to flame each other in person. In any case, the ANSI governing body had a procedural rule that stated (in effect): "Every three years each standard must revised or be reaffirmed without change ". If ABC has a governing body they might do well to adopt this approach. If you can't sell your ideas for improvement within the three year cycle the existing ideas would remain in place for developers. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee
Richard Robinson said - You're right. I apologise for my failure of politeness and patience. Thank you Richard. I know I get up peoples noses but I wish they would recognise my commitment to and admiration for abc. ABC2NWC may not fit in with everyones needs but it was no trivial task. A substantial part of the work went into coping with the shambles that is the existing abc database and I think the result is pretty resilient. I would also like to thank Phil Taylor for so amply illustrating the tendency of those who have run out of rational argument to descend into personal abuse. I would further like to thank Wil Macaulay for providing an example of an attack by someome who clearly hasn't bothered to take in what I have said. So, in a triumph of hope over experience, I will try again. I want to ADD an explicit (sharps/flats) key signature format to the K: command just as John Chambers has proposed. This is Wil's category [1]. I don't like the tonic+mode system because it is confusing for those musicians who are unfamiliar with modes (probably the majority) and unnecessary for those who are (the mode is in the tune). Those in the first category who are not put off abc completely will either do whatever they need to do to get the conventional notation they need at the end (Two sharps? That's K:D) or make their best guess (Two sharps? Well it's not D major so it must be B minor.) The result is a lot of innacurate abc. If you don't believe this, think of a few minor or modal tunes and look them up on John Chambers' tune finder. My favourite is Morrison's Jig. Modal information is useful and interesting. I just don't believe it belongs in the K: command. Having said that, I will say again for the umpteenth time - I have NEVER said that I want to see the tonic+mode format removed. It is there. Huge amounts of abc have been created using it. Some people seem to like it no matter how unreliable it may be. We are stuck with it. Yes, Richard, I do get aggrieved when I am attacked (and abused) for things I haven't said. Bryan Creer
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee (Was: Hi)
I was one of the people who was asked to join the committee, but I declined, suggesting they should concentrate on the major abc developers instead, and that's more or less how it happened. With hindsight I might agree it wasn't the perfect solution. Among other things it left Jack Campin and - as far as I know - Robert Bley-Vroman out. I'm happy with the present setup; the people on the committee have always listened to my suggestions, and small committees work better than big ones. I spent a couple of years being something like a diplomatic envoy in a multi-site, multinational software project once, and if I was going to do it again I'd prefer to have free flights to interesting places as part of the deal like I did back then. === http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ === To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee
Frank Nordberg said - John and Laura decided to recruit committee members among the most active posters at abcusers. Strange. They didn't ask me. I was one of the people who was asked to join the committee, but I declined, suggesting they should concentrate on the major abc developers instead, and that's more or less how it happened. A great pity. I think that Frank, as one of the major contributors to abc without being a developer, is exactly the sort of person who should have been on the committee. His consistent level headed approach and courteous manner would have been an effective counter to some of the more headstrong members. Bryan Creer
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Nordberg said - John and Laura decided to recruit committee members among the most active posters at abcusers. Strange. They didn't ask me. Perhaps that's because you seem to spend 90% of your posts getting aggrieved and appearing to dislike everyone else. I don't think I'd want to work with you either. -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] The abc committee (Was: Hi)
I'm posting three different replies to Bryans post, because I think there are three different issues that ought to be kept separat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "We" - a different, but overlapping we - are currently trying to push the ABC standard forward. A committee set up with no reference to the wider ABC community. The committee surely should have stated their mandate clearer here at abcusers. It seems quite a few people have the impression that it's just a bunch of people who have decide on their own to take matters in their own hand. But it shouldn't be too late to correct that though, so here's a short history (I might have gotten a few minor details wrong): When Chris Walshaw announced his withdrawal from the abc development work a while ago, he oficially appointed John Atchley as the new "keeper of the ABC standard". John didn't want to have that responsibility alone, so he persuaded Laura Conrad to join him in the work (I've got a feeling she didn't need too much persuation ;) The two of them then set out to recruit committee members. In other words: as far as it is possible to have a clearly founded mandate in such an anarchistic environment as the abc community, the abc standard committee's got it. John and Laura decided to recruit committee members among the most active posters at abcusers. Honestly, I can't see they could have done it any other way. I'm sure there are lots of other abc users out there who could have done a marvelous job, but since they choose to stay in the background, we have no way of knowing about them. They also had senses enough to ask people in private rather than starting a discussion at abcusers. (Just imagine how *that* would have ended!!!) I was one of the people who was asked to join the committee, but I declined, suggesting they should concentrate on the major abc developers instead, and that's more or less how it happened. With hindsight I might agree it wasn't the perfect solution. Among other things it left Jack Campin and - as far as I know - Robert Bley-Vroman out. On the other hand, it made it far easier to set up the committee, and - even more important - it drastically increased the probability that the abc developers actually would follow the new standard. In any case, although I'm sure I wasn't the only one to suggest a committee of major developers, I'm willing to take the blame. So if anybody has any problems with it, please send any flames to me privately. No need to bother the whole list. (I already get so much spam, it won't make much difference to me ;) --- If anybody feels left out, please remember that a committee has to have as few members as possible to be able to work efficiently. Besides the committee is *not* the main forum for developing the abc standard. The abcusers mail list still has that function. So we just keep on discussing abc improvements here. The only difference is that there is now somebody to gather all the pieces and make something coherent out of it afterwards. Just like Bryan, I'm not convinced it'll actually work. But we have to give it a try. There doesn't seem to be any alternatives. Frank Nordberg --- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee (Was: Hi)
"Frank" == Frank Nordberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank With hindsight I might agree it wasn't the perfect Frank solution. Among other things it left Jack Campin and - as Frank far as I know - Robert Bley-Vroman out. No, Robert is a member of the committee. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
