9 Apr
2004
9 Apr
'04
12:34 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 02:53:10 +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
I can't see how that, or any other process, would agree on any of the
proposed fixes given the current lack of concensus.
Yup, I think its a good idea though.
- Steve
* 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. 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.