>Sure, but reading this list for several years I have the impression, >that more effort goes into finding consensus than on writing code.
I guess that's a fair criticism, but I think that's unavoidable with a software project in this situation. Remember that the ORIGINAL MH was developed in 1979. So we've got a software package that's over 30 years old; that's ... what, 3 lifetimes in terms of Internet time? :-) The original people aren't involved anymore. Well, okay, John Romine is still around (nice to hear from you!), and we've seen messages from Norman Shapiro not too long ago. Jerry Peek is a lurker who pops up now and then. Richard Coleman, the guy who forked nmh, isn't doing that anymore. So, the question THEN becomes ... who's in charge of nmh? Is it me? Is it Jon Steinhart? Is it Peter Maydell? We're all listed as nmh admins on the savannah web pages, but are we "in charge"? I think if one of us wanted to be in charge, the others wouldn't fight it too much. I think (but I don't want to speak for the others) that our personalities don't work that way; each of us wants nmh to succeed, but nmh isn't quite important enough to us to devote the time/energy to be the guy who is willing to adhere to a vision and occasionally run roughshod over the objections of others (because, in my mind, that really is what being in charge means: occasionally you're going to have to be the asshole). So, we're in a situation where nmh works in a certain way; we want to change it, but we don't know how that change will affect others. So we solicit feedback and try to build a consensus for a change. Because in my mind, nmh really belongs to everyone; while I may (occasionally) shepherd it in a particular direction, I want it to succeed so that others find it useful, and to do that I need to make sure that other people find it useful as well. Also, given the fact that (n)mh is 30+ years old, people have strong opinions about the way it should work; I do try to be sensitive to that, and I think others feel the same way as well. So it's a balancing act between the way MH currently works versus the way it should work, and of course not everyone agrees on the way it SHOULD work. Add to that the fact that most of us have lives not in front of a computer, and we're working on nmh in our free time, and people tend to be focused on what is important to them personally rather than the long-term vision. >All I wanted to say is: This situation encourages people to think of >work arounds instead of reporting bugs. So the fact that no bugs were >reported is very weak evidence that everybody agrees on the current >behaviour. I for one understand that. I don't necessarily think that people are happy with the way nmh works, but that's why we're having these conversations - to figure out nmh SHOULD work. I think that's an inefficiency we have to live with, unless someone wants to step up and be the occasional asshole. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
