Gary Poster wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hey Gary,
>> [panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
>> compete for attention]
> [Had to look up panarchist, but yes, essentially.]

I shouldn't have used that word, I actually didn't realize anyone else 
had made it up beyond me but it seems to have a century + history. :)

> I think your statements and mine mesh well enough.  If you don't  
> agree, that's fine.  Practically, it means I support what you are  
> trying to do (and in fact I would tend towards your camp in my  
> proposed panarchy), if from a slightly different perspective.

Sure, they mesh well enough. I'm just pointing out that freely competing 
projects only work to a certain extent; as soon as there's code or 
community resources shared between them there are going to be points of 
conflicts of interests that need to be resolved somehow. I think often 
this can be resolved to the satisfaction of everybody, but I do think we 
need a structure in which things can be resolved. Freely competing 
structures might equal no structure, and that's something to watch out for.

> I'm glad you sent your proposal email first.  Now that you have, I  
> hope you pursue your vision without needing 100% buy-in from the  
> community.  I'm optimistic that you will. :-)

I'm a stubborn fool with no idea of what I seem to be signing up for, so 
I guess I might. :)



Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to