[linux-audio-dev] how about a LADSPA BOF session at LAConf#2 ?

[Alfons Adriaensen]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 01:20:42PM +0200, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:

> * LADSPA has some showstopper deficiencies to some developers
> 
> * there seems to be an ongoing battle about how essential rdf 
> metadata support should be: if it's purely optional, then many 
> things that conceptually should be metadata must be duplicated in 
> more or less inelegant additions to ladspa.h, and there seems to be 
> no real consensus on how to do that. if metadata support is 
> necessary even for simple hosts to create usable guis, we put the 
> famed 'S' in danger.
> 
> * at present, the discussion has reached the "matter of taste" point 
> and is pretty much dead in the water.

"The noise has died down", to use Steve's expression, but without
any result whatsoever.
 
> * with no real formal process for the development of LADSPA except 
> for richard's role as the "benevolent dictator", and richard being 
> very quiet on the matter, those developers who opt for an extension 
> of the spec may feel there is no way to get their proposals through.
> 
> * maybe for that reason, there has been some imho ill-advised 
> rhetoric towards fait-accompli tactics.

I have so far presented three proposals. One of them was just a matter
of interpretation. The two others would have no ill effect at all except
using one the 22 (IIRC) available hint bits, and in a way that could be
safely ignored by all existing hosts. In all three cases the net result
was zero. Since I did not propose these things in order to waste my own
time nor that of the other list members, but because a problem presented
itself during development and needed a solution, this *is* frustrating. 

If the only approval process is the intervention of a "benevolent
dictator", then one would at least expect for this person to take up
his responsabilities, take part in the discussion, and decide. 
If this, for some reason, is not possible then another approval
process should be installed.

If the current situtation prevails, the end result will be that 
either some people will introduce their own plugin format, or that
at some point there will be a fait acccompli. It seems like either
of these will be required in order to get things moving at all.

> for that reason, let's try to cram a LADSPA BOF into the already 
> overflowing schedule at LAConf#2, or at least dedicate a "working 
> dinner" to the future of LADSPA.
> i have this feeling that injecting the face-to-face factor and some 
> german beer into the discussion might remove some obstacles. :-D

I'd prefer some wine, but otherwise this may be a good idea. Fact is
that the conference will already be a very busy affair, so this will
need some planning.

-- 
FA