On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 21:33 -0800, antarus wrote: > I think the whole deal is blown out of proportion, mostly because many > people dislike Ciaran, and unfortunately Ciaran dislikes (or distrusts, > may be a better word) many other people (myself and Brian Harring > included). If the aim is to get everyone to work together to make a big > happy spec; I just don't see it happening (the teams really don't get > along well when discussing technical issues). The only potential issue > is that PMS comes out and the aforementioned 'meddlers' make their > statements and it is a situation that is beyond reconcilliation. You've > basically written a PMS that may never get approved just because we will > never agree on a standard anyway (due to specific differences in how we > view a PM working). > > In essence, delaying all the confrontation to the end. Which is cool > with me; tbh ;)
If I'm not mistaken, the PMS will be something the Council will eventually agree on and set in some form of soft stone. If this is the case, then all the posturing and complaining in the world won't make much different. The council would be the deciding factor. Of course, we're not blind. We'll see the discussion. However, there comes a point when a discussion is nothing more than bitter conflict between two parties, where each is simply repeating themselves. I've been privy to a few of these, and admittedly, participated in a few. The end goal is to come up with a spec that everyone adheres to. Nothing says the spec cannot be amended. The point is that at some point, we have to agree on *something* or we never move forward. Does it have to be perfect? No. But we should try our best to make it as close to perfect as we can before we try forcing the differing implementations to use it. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
