I didn't see anyone respond 'politically'. As far as I could tell, everyone gave their opinion on it, sincerely. Can you describe what you mean by "We are not building political machine to steer opensim architecture are we?" this a bit more and demonstrate where you thought it occurred, Tommi?
-Teravus On 3/18/09, Tommi Laukkanen <[email protected]> wrote: > It is a bit sad that this effort goes to waste. The opensim.ini is too > big to be efficient and everyone is wasting a lot of time browsing it > back and forth. I think something like splitting it up or moving > defaults to other file is really needed. > > What is complex now is finding the properties you need from the > opensim property file. I think justincc:s proposal was elegant and > people should look deeper into it. It would definetly make everyones > life easier. > > Honestly I also think that it is counter productive to give + or - > based on someone elses opinion (your favorite architect or the sorts). > One should only vote if one has himself looked into the matter. We are > not building political machine to steer opensim architecture are we? > Rather a board of specialists who look into the subject and give their > opinion if they are interested enough to dig into it. Otherwise we can > end up with a system where someone off handedly gives a - and as chain > reaction we get huge opposition for perfectly good suggestion or the > other way around. > > -Tommi > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
