On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 02:53:10 +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > > * maybe for that reason, there has been some imho ill-advised > > rhetoric towards fait-accompli tactics. > > I have so far presented three proposals. One of them was just a matter > of interpretation. The two others would have no ill effect at all except > using one the 22 (IIRC) available hint bits, and in a way that could be > safely ignored by all existing hosts. In all three cases the net result > was zero. Since I did not propose these things in order to waste my own > time nor that of the other list members, but because a problem presented > itself during development and needed a solution, this *is* frustrating. > > If the only approval process is the intervention of a "benevolent > dictator", then one would at least expect for this person to take up > his responsabilities, take part in the discussion, and decide. > If this, for some reason, is not possible then another approval > process should be installed.
I can't see how that, or any other process, would agree on any of the proposed fixes given the current lack of concensus. > > for that reason, let's try to cram a LADSPA BOF into the already > > overflowing schedule at LAConf#2, or at least dedicate a "working > > dinner" to the future of LADSPA. > > i have this feeling that injecting the face-to-face factor and some > > german beer into the discussion might remove some obstacles. :-D > > I'd prefer some wine, but otherwise this may be a good idea. Fact is > that the conference will already be a very busy affair, so this will > need some planning. Yup, I think its a good idea though. - Steve
