Hi Oleg, >_IBM needs this code written one way or another regardless of what we >_think about it. The question is _what exactly_ they will be willing to >_donate to the project. And it is still up to us to decide _what exactly_ >_and in which form we will be willing to accept.
And the sooner they know of our requirements, the cheaper it will be for them to implement something that fits within our project. If you wait until they have code that already addresses all their customer requirements, and then ask them to spend more time on fitting it for us, that's when you loose a potential contributor. >_However, talking stuff >_like vetoing contributions makes it less likely IBM will be willing to >_donate anything at all. No it doesn't. It sets clear guidelines that they can take into account from the start with little effort. It's sad that I had to mention a veto, but I will not have this issue ignored, or forced a rush decision on us later when we are facing a contribution that inseparably mingles functionality we would like to use and such that doesn't fit at all into our project. I will rather have a discussion *now*, so I don't have to reject the contribution when it is offered. cheers, Roland --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
