On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 01:24:22AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Graham Percival > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The meta-target is "after spending 5 years very publicly > > telling people *not* to talk about changing the syntax because > > we would do so 'in a year or two', I think I should encourage > > such discussions.". I mean, people trusted me when I said > > that there -snip- > Whatever you have been saying in the past is irrelevant.
Yes, I'm definitely getting that impression. As you may recall, I launched a proposal to discuss GLISS: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-07/msg00639.html You replied with a single email: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-07/msg00786.html Discussion continued: "there seems to be fairly broad support for _some_ form of standardization": http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-07/msg00874.html The final proposal was posted: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-08/msg00191.html with no substantial disagreement. That proposal became: http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_4.html I don't know where to go from here. I spend a lot of effort trying to organize such discussions, because I think that LilyPond is a community project. I think that we should encourage people to participate, but telling people "ok, thanks for your work on XYZ, now get lost while the real developers talk about ABC" might discourage people from working. The idea behind having an explicit policy proposal, following by at least two updates of the proposal, is to allow everybody to see just what is being considered and to have lots of time to make objections. If some people ignore the later proposals (especially the one marked "final") and then object a month later, the whole process becomes a total waste of time. Granted, some people might see this as a good thing. That's what I want to find out now. Is there any point to having policy discussions in the form of GOP ? If not, then how else should we organize ourselves? One of the neat things about Waltrop was seeing a range of developers and users. Some people were very concerned about Baroque music; others preferred pushing the boundaries of paper notation (and even going beyond static notation into video!). Some people ate meat, some people drank alcohol, some people were devoutly religious, some people were atheists. Some people organized crowd-sourcing of a book of vocal scores; some people write algorithmic music with "write-once, read-never" ly files. Some people wake up early, some sleep in. Some people work on converters to/from ly and musicxml, some people worked on online/realtime score generation. The LilyPond community has some shared values, some opposing values, but an overall interest in the specific code base called "lilypond". How can we work on that together, while respecting our individual differences? How can we encourage and keep ourselves motivated to improve LilyPond? - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
