In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bert Van Vreckem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> Are we going to vote? >> If so who votes?. > >No, no. In development, democracy sucks. We tried it a few years ago >with the abc standard committee and it failed. What abc (and any >development project for that matter) needs is someone who takes >responsibility of the standard, someone that, after a lengthy discussion >on the abcusers list, says: 'this is how it's going to be and that's the >end of it.' > >I'm actually very happy with the way things are going nowadays. Guido >wrote a new draft standard that Irwin is now maintaining. Both are >reasonable people that listen to advice that everyone on this list >gives. I think they deserve our trust in their commitment to develop a >standard that *works* and that a significant number of people are happy >with. (I didn't write 'everyone' or 'most of us' because, after all, >we're musicians... ;-))
> >> The density of mail on the list is no guide to the opinion of list >> members. If someone raises an objection to some element of the >> standard do we then have to have 30 "I agree" messages on an >> already very active list to show this is the will of the assembly >> >> I think we must first decide whether Revision III is a step forward. > >It is. We have something we can work with. > >> Then, whichever version is taken as a basis for discussion, we need >> it reformulated in a hierarchically numbered fashion so that we can discuss >> particular sections ( 2.7.6 or whatever), propose changes and come to a >> decision. > >Numbering sections is a very good idea indeed. Seconded. > >> It may be that we have to revive the developers list and >> restrict discussion to the new standard until we have sorted it. > >This is what the standard committee tried. There's still a mailing list >on the abc project website: ><http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3343>. > >> What is Chris Walshaw's position on this? ABC is his invention and I >> would have thought he had some "ownership" of the standard. There >> is no reason why anyone should not be extend ABC and call it ABD, but >> for a self-selected group to take over a standard and change it >> gratuitously seems to set a very dodgy precedent - standard hijacking? > >Chris stopped maintaining the standard a few years ago and before the >standard committee was started up, we checked with him how he should >feel about someone else taking over. He was delighted that this >happened. Likewise, I'm sure that he'll be happy with the current >efforts to update the standard. But I could send him a mail to make sure. > >> The best examples I can think of come from Microsoft (HTML, Java) >> and we wouldnt want to end up like that, now would we. > >Therefore, I strongly suggest that we accept Irwin as the maintainer of >the one and only abc standard and that we advise him to the best of our >abilities. He is neutral, he is enthousiastic about abc, he seems like a >reasonable chap. I think he'd be a good choice. > >My humble opinion... ... is seconded by me. No votes, no committee. One level-headed fair maintainer who listens and then decides. Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
