On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:45 PM, John Baer <[email protected]> wrote: > Kenneth, > > I lot of good info. IMO the bulk of the development is complete on the > Impression submission and as I have some time I believe I will work it > against the desires of "Kyudo". > > I asked Michael Kuhn if he planned to build a package against the svn137 > commit of Murrine. > > My question is would this be considered "too new" applying the "Kyudo" > standard?
Applying the "Kyudo standard"? As far as I can see, Kyudo is an ill-defined idea that lacks any specific implementation details, so applying any part of it as a standard is just going to be haphazard. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware it's completely unproven; even if somebody did come up with a set of concrete standards based on the Kyudo concept and tried applying them, we have no precedent suggesting that it's likely to increase the quality of our distribution, facilitate teamwork, or anything else. There _is_ a lot of work that's gone into finding team management strategies, event planning methods, etc -- people go to college for 4-8 years and earn all kinds of fancy degrees in business administration, for Pete's sake. I don't understand why there is an effort underway to build some sort of process apart from what's already been researched, published, and battle-tested in numerous cycles. Everything I've seen regarding Kyudo indicates to me that it is unresearched and untested, so until those criticisms no longer apply, I think it's ludicrous to suggest that we apply it as a standard anywhere. -Ryan > > In addition there is some info on the wiki relative to a face-book GDM. > Is this a go, or is this an effort to be developed using the "Kyudo" > process? > > Finally, I applaud your vision with "Kyudo". > > John > > > -- > ubuntu-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art >
-- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
