I agree; In fact, people have been trying to communicate with Lindens in some meaningful way (as is required in Open Source projects) since the beginning of the open-sourcing of the viewer, but it seems that Linden Lab seems more inclined to dictate what changes WILL be done rather than gathering a consensus with OSS developers. See: hidden SVN/HG servers, unreleased SL 2.0 beta source code, overall poor bug turnover and triage in PJIRA (SVC-1509, anyone?), office hours vanishing into thin air...
Quite frankly, the idea of forking the entirety of SL (OpenSim and viewers), as suggested by Morgaine, is looking quite attractive. At least then the community can actually contribute without being shot down, blocked by a wall of red tape, or chased off by rabid TPV policies. We can then also contribute to the server-side of things rather than waiting for the server goons to get around to adding or fixing features. Fred Rookstown On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:26 -0500, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) <mag...@matrisync.com> > Date: Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about > llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520 > To: Soft Linden <s...@lindenlab.com> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden <s...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > > > A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed > > completely in the open, and in a way that's aligned with everybody's > > interests. But that takes an active commitment on all sides... > > True enough. But I think there's widespread perception that the Second > Life Viewer is already not a "totally healthy open-source project", > and I don't think that perception can't be laid at the door of > "obstructionism". _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
