What if the aim that superseded this was to make it available to the next set of people, who can do something about real fundamental change around this?
Perhaps what is needed is to ACTUALLY clear out the cruft. Maybe it's not easy or possible through the "old" channels... too much work to convince too many people who have so much history of the merits of tearing down the existing systems. Just a thought. Julian On 02/03/2012, at 2:04 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 1 March 2012 15:02, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote: >> Is this one of the aims? > > It doesn't seem to be, which is sad, because however brilliant the > ideas you can't rely on other people to get them out for you. > > On 01/03/2012, at 11:42 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote: > >> The biggest challenge for FONC will not be to achieve good technical >> results, as it is stuffed with people who have a history of doing >> great work, and its results to date are already exciting, but to get >> those results into widespread use; I've seen no evidence that the >> principals have considered how and why they failed to do this in the >> past, nor that they've any ideas on how to avoid it this time around. > -- > http://rrt.sc3d.org > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list email@example.com http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc