On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 08:31 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
With all due respect, our requirements or _your_ requirements? > 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. Same as above. Oleg > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
