Phil Taylor wrote:
>
> If you really want to put forward a serious proposal for features
> to be added to a new standard you must first study _all_ of the
> existing programs, and come up with something which minimises the
> changes which have to be made to all of the existing code and
> invalidates as few as possible of the published abcs.
A very good point, Phil, but I seriously doubt there is any single
person who possesses all that knowledge.
That's where the abcusers mail list comes in, of course - or rather;
this is where the mail list *should* have come in.
The main problem with the list, and it's offspring, the standard
committee, is not any particular person, nor is it that people aren't
committed enough to abc. The problem is that we have developed a culture
of inefficiency, making it all but impossible for us to reach any conclusion.
The solution is easy in theory, but takes some serious self discipline
from all of us:
When someone proposes a change in the standard, we should first come up
with a unanimous agreement what the issue is about. If it turns out that
we have wildly differing concepts of that (which is usually the case),
we sort it out - not by trying to enforce our our conception, but by
trying to understand the others' viewpoint(s).
Then, when we agree on exactly what we are discussing, we focus on that
and follows it through to the bitter end. Anybody who has some thoughts
about the issue, should present it and be respected for it. Those who
doesn't, should have the decency to shut up. Digressions are perfectly
OK, but only if they are posted as separate threads.
And, oh yes, let's start discussing something really simple. We all need
some discussing practice before we try to handle the big stuff.
Frank Nordberg
http://www.musicaviva.com
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
