For your reference, records indicate that Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote:
> When someone wants to submit a patch that's one > thing, but if someone expresses a desire to add more then they become > responsible for it. And yet I see bugs dating back to 2003 that are still unassigned. If someone has taken responsibility for the involved classes/frameworks, why aren’t these issues being resolved? If nobody is taking responsibility, it makes GNUstep a very hard thing to recommend to people. > This is plainly beyond the scope of a mission statement. Also saying we > are "bringing Cocoa to other platforms" clearly implies that there is a > path. I disagree. Maybe it’s because the US is in a big election years, but I have *zero* trust today that anyone has a plan for anything they say unless they explicitly state said plan with a fair degree of detail. It may not be as pithy as a shorter “executive summary mission statement, but my argument is that a full plan is *necessary* to organize the modest resources the project has available to meet the stated goals. > > We can’t just ignore the big gorilla in the room (Apple), either. > > Sure we can. We can mention we are compatible with something by name. As > long as there is not a possibility of brand confusing we are clear in the > legal sense, so there is no sense making a huge deal about this. In my 20 > years on this project there has not been a single stirring of the fruit > basket. ;) I don't expect one now unless we become wildly popular which, > given how things are going, I believe that Apple is the absolute least of > our concerns. You misunderstand my mention of Apple. It’s not to highlight them as a threat, but as a potential resource of development talent given their status as the world’s primary Cocoa platform. Outreach doesn’t appear to be part of the plan, and that remains a huge problem for GNUstep. > The mission statement I gave is very short, understandable, and crystal > clear such that anyone with a primary / grade school education would be > able to follow it. And yet in a decade when ObjC interest has exploded, it doesn’t appear GNUstep has taken advantage of that. So, based on the evidence, do you *really* think you’re getting your message out there clearly? I argue that setting specific goals, and measuring progress against them, is both far more scientific and far more clear than something that is meant for children. > http://mediawiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Writing_portable_code > > This page details both directions. The issue is that it is not linked to > on the site so it is not immediately obvious how this should work. No, the *real* issue is that nobody knows for sure if it is an accurate representation of the current state of GNUstep. The issue is that code still comes first, documentation *may* follow, and then it seems that things are often left to rot. I would argue, for example, that in makes no sense in 2016 to be talking about NeXT anymore, except as a historical excerpt. That’s why I say this is a problem that cannot be fixed by just committing more code. It needs an organizational shift, which should means a frank discussion on what the real vision of the project is going to be over the next 10 years (hell, I’d even take 4 years). But nobody on the inside wants to talk about the heart of the matter, and that makes most people on the outside decide to stay on the outside. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
