Laurie Grifiths says -
> History: There used to be an ABC developers list, only. Then there was a
> users list as well, then development issues started getting discussed on the
> users list and a consensus seemed to develop that users were interested
> enough in what went on that everything was on the users list. So now there
> is only a users list, but it's used for everything. Not sure if the users
> list is actually dead and rotted or if it exists but is unused. The
> difference is academic anyway.
I can't see why this justifies the assertion that the rules of abc are
decided by democratic vote of developers. This IS the users list and a lot
of users contribute to it but you're right that the difference is academic if
(some) developers feel that they have some right by ancient precedent to
ignore the wishes of users. Phil Taylor opposes the sharps/flats version of
the K: command explicitly BECAUSE it would be taken up by the vast majority
of users. You, infamously, said "WE like it the way it is." John Henckel
says "The K: should FORCE people to identify the tonic." Not much democracy
there.
> What Groucho said was that he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that
> would have him.
> (Think about it. I am not going to elaborate, now or ever).
OK, so I bent Groucho's words a bit but the point is that Phil Taylor has
told me that I am now a member of the developers club and that I'm "entitled"
to vote on the abc rules. No thanks. I don't recognise the authority that
gives me that entitlement and do not want any greater rights than any other
user.
> Some of the points were responded to - look at the archives if your memory
> fails.
Yes, sigh, the passing of the years. Just to help me out, think of a few
non-major tunes, look them up on John Chambers' tune finder and then explain
to me again, nice and slowly, why it is better to specify an incorrect tonic
than none at all.
> Some of us are of the opposite opinion.
But not, according to Phil Taylor, the vast majority of users.
> Where a consensus emerges, things get done.
No they don't. I think most people agree that the V: command is a good idea.
A few developers have done their own implementations of it but it hasn't
been proposed for the standard in a way that everybody can take up. John
Chambers made some proposals for more sophisticated repeats that made little
impact. There was a lengthy discussion about transposition a while ago that
came to no particular conclusin after which a few people went off and did
what they thought best. The abc2ps system seems to consist of umpteen
different versions, each of which may contain a good idea but none of which
contain all of them. The sourceforge project that was meant to sort that out
seems to have been met with massive indifference. Things DON'T get done.
Which is the sad thing. Even if I do manage to persuade everybody that I'm
right and that even the mode purists would benefit from having less
misinformation around, it still won't actually happen. "Interesting" things
like bracketing advisory accidentals will always take priority.
Anyway, Laurie, nice to know you're talking to me again after you swore you
never would.
Bryan Creer
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
