29 Sep
2003
29 Sep
'03
3:26 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 09:08:31 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 09:06:06AM +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
The reason I'm keeping my mouth shut is not reluctance to offend anyone :)
its because it wont help, and I dont want to be too negative about it.
Standards processes that I've been exposed to generally mandate regular
weekly meetings (teleconference and/or irc), with less frequent
face-to-face meetings and most business is sorted out during the meetings.
Email is only used for tying up loose ends and exchanging text, minuites
etc.
The W3C (for example) are quite stict about it - if you miss too many
meetings or face-to-face's then you're not allowed to vote for the rest of
the process.
Sadly that wont really work for GMPI as there are too many key
contributors who couldn't, or wouldn't commit to weekly meetings.
I dont think the GMPI process is domed, its just likely to be slow. The
recent suggestions should help. Also, the fact that theres no real
pressing need for it doesnt help either - most platforms allready have
OK instrument APIs and we have ALSA Seq + JACK for synths, which does
work.
- Steve
I have my own thery about why it didnt work out,
but I'm keeping my mouth
shut for once :)
Don't do that! :) I want to learn from the failure of this process, even if
it was entirely my fault. Please share, even privately.