Hi JBone,
you wrote:
>Look, here's *just one* way to handle these issues. (There are plenty of
>others.) HQ writes specs.
We'll call ourselves HQ for now and write specs.
>HQ manages builds.
Since REBOL is a scripting language and my contention is that building DB
support into REBOL can be done as a script using the existing port
mechanism (would require some more investigating), there is no compiling,
there are no builds.
>HQ makes official builds
>available.
Same as above.
>HQ writes whatever code they want to put in there.
If we're serious about this, we can ask REBOL Tech to monitor our specs and
enter into a dialog about DB specs. They can put whatever code they want
into their release.
>HQ selects from
>contributed code, taking what they like.
Now, we're talking about REBOL Tech. REBOL Tech selects whatever code they
want for inclusin in REBOL Tech distribution.
>HQ sells binary distributions, support,
>applications, additional devtools, maybe a compiler.
Here again I'd replace HQ by REBOL Tech. If they choose to integrate our
OpenSource DB API, they could integrate into binary distributions as far as
I'm concerned.
>Runs a web-based community.
We have rebol.org.
What do you think?
;- Elan >> [: - )]
