Chris Little wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a discussion list. It's for receipt and > release of content, occasionally with the necessity of providing > feedback regarding errors.
I am fully aware of this. My post was clear on that. > I do and will continue to do my best to > manage the incoming submissions, other demands on my time permitting. And considering that the other demands on your time are there too, you should allow others to take part in that role. Because otherwise it is a bottleneck - which has nothing whatsoever to do with perfection or ideology or technology but is a simple resource issue. > Your list of suggested additions to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with due > respect, consists of persons who are technically unqualified I gather this is me. Fair enough. My view in this matter though is that a mixture of skills and skill levels - provided one sticks to agreed rules - can be beneficial as it allows others with higher skills to practice at their level. I guess I have proven this over the years. Same applies to Daniel Owens and David Haslam. > or, because > they do not subscribe to CrossWire policies on these matters, > ideologically unqualified to be part of that process. And there is the rub. I am strongly disputing this. We have a bottleneck and this bottleneck has only become an "ideological" issue because we allowed it to become one. Open the process, stop controlling and see whether things will not even out very rapidly. > And I think many of the complaints from the last few days come from > individuals who cannot or will not respect authority. Considering the length of time these complaints are surfacing and resurfacing and the number of times we had people here stating "I send a module in x number of months ago, what is happening?" these complaints have been remarkably restrained, patient and respectful - until you chose to continue to ignore them. > Change to current > systems and workflows can come, but not without respect for the existing > policies and guiding principles. And without some serious changes we might end up with a seriously diminished project. > Logos has a guiding principle that I've always respected. Their position > is that Bible software ought to be the best software in the world. I > believe we ought to adopt that principle insofar as we are able. We all have. > For my own part I try to make our content as high quality as I can, within > my > own and the source materials' limitations. And there is the next rub - by sitting on the bottleneck you make your own limitations the limitations of the project. > That's not always been my > belief. Once I was young and impetuous and felt that it was most > important and most impressive to get as much content out as quickly as > possible. But I've since come to greater appreciate that the work we do > deserves better than a careless attitude. How much I do is less > important than how well it is done. The problem here is - and Karl has expressed it beautifully in words I am not going to repeat - a desire for attainment of perfection has to be tempered by a desire to create output which is good enough. > If you do not believe that Bibles, as well as associated content, > deserve the utmost care and the devotion of as much time as is necessary > to do right by them, then I do not believe you have any business working > with them, for it suggests an inadequate respect for the Bible itself. I am sure that medieval book-painters will have said that to Gutenberg too. To be more serious - putting out a non-formatted OSIS feature free VPL bible - as long as it is actually faithful to the text - no missing words/verses/chapters etc which can be reliably used with gain to personal study and for evangelism, is not a sign of inadequate respect, but is the computerised equivalent of printing a tract bible for giving away. It has its place. It is good, it is good enough. If we cannot produce a feature full text without major delay we should have a featureless text immediately and then reissue with more features later. Cheers Peter > --Chris > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
