I posted this a couple of days ago, during the changeover, and never got a copy of it back, so I am reposting it, as nobody commented on it so I don't know if the idea was out there... On Wed, 22 May 2002, ZN wrote: > It is really a cooperative effort, and the key to keeping it that way is > finding a balance between the authority of the registrar and the > contributors. The registrar has the final word on what goes in and what > stays out, but this is balanced by the fact that he can only add what he is > given in the form of contributions. In addition, it is reasonable to expect > that the registrar will get feedback from people who get the new official > core releases, and may consult others about his decisions, so that's > another way his decisions can be influenced. Ok, let me make a proposal. Accept that serious developers can have a different set of rules under the license. Create a mailing list for developer-registrar-reseller communication, and an access-controlled up/download area. Registered users do not have access to this, but registered developers do. This benefits the resellers, who know what is coming down the pipe and can plan advertising/availability as required, helps developers by giving them immediate access to latest sources, each other, and the registrar, and also benefits the registrar by making the developers' work transparent to him. 'Registered Developers' would simply apply to the Registrar with their qualifications - which may just be their name in most cases, or for someone less well known a specific project or idea. This allows free communication of source, binaries, coding support and co-operative division of labour between programmers, and also makes that process entirely transparent to the Registrar. Also, it can be his way of communicating globally to registered developers. I think this dual level license would have clear benefits over the proposed arrangement as it stands. > can veto the registrar's decision. If you want to expand that concept > further, you can appoint a board of 'consultants', which then begs to The above private list would constitute a quorum of key developers and resellers. With the benefits of membership would come responsibilities. My proposed construct also simplifies support. One post of a bug report goes to all developers. The developer who wrote the 'feature' can fix it, and also has at their disposal overy other registered developer, who may post ideas, code snippets, etc... Co-operation! > The problem I have with the flurry of argument (left over after I delete > the various squabbles with epithets and metaphors in them every day), is > that people keep repeating that completely free binaries _of_SMSQ_ MUST be > alowed for developement. I am fully aware that for the time being this will The above proposal solves this problem too. All developers are probably current owners of SMSQ anyway, and as a community can cross-check each other's work. The free distribution of binaries on a 'come see' basis amongst *developers* deprives nobody of income, speeds the development cycle and makes things more 'open' with a small 'o'. > I agree, however i see no reason to word 'platform speciffic support is not > a part of SMSQ core' in the licence. I do se reason to put in a reference > to guidelines on SMSQ extension, then define those outside the licence. The Not just platform specific but language specific. Will there be a requirement that all modules be written in assembly, or in well annotated C, or NastaVision, or XYZ? :o) I hope these suggestions and proposals contribute as a step forward. I understand there is a long way to go yet, but I think this idea will placate most of the concerns about distributing binaries for testing, and the nature of testing, and the transparency of the developer-registrar-reseller relationship. Respectfully, Dave
