Andy: > Yes, there is much more potential in wiring up more horses, but in a > way that is up to you... for example, for the documentation part, > whether the efforts should be spent on the 2.0 version or the 1.x > version.
I hope to have good reason to follow up more fully to your comments later. I appreciate the respect. I don't want to declare what I think is right at this juncture. I'd rather learn a bit more about what people want from this. The key thing is that, as a public project, this is a volunteer effort. If I have any place at all it certainly has a lot to do with organizing people to help them better achieve the aims they have in common rather than organizing them achieve my own aims. I'm subject to quite justifiable criticism for my conduct in past years of this project from that perspective. (This is not to say my own aims are not relevant.) I advocate anarchy in this context but anarchy is not allergic to organizing techniques borrowed from management. I'd like to hear more perspectives on the "why are we here" question. So far, most of what I have by way of answer to what people think of that question is that many people think my job as maintainer was to make the project look more like (in superficial terms) the handful of projects that are well supported by corporations. (I'm not putting your answer in that category and there are other exceptions on the list -- that's just the bulk of a lot of the criticisms I got over the years.) -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
