| 1 |
Ciaran, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have |
| 4 |
created so far? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS, |
| 7 |
but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit |
| 8 |
concerned. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
-Daniel |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 13 |
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:47:04 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron" |
| 14 |
> <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 15 |
> | On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 16 |
> | > This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the |
| 17 |
> | |
| 18 |
> | Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the |
| 19 |
> | result of a collaborative effort of representing members of the |
| 20 |
> | organization(s) that is (are) supposed to adhere to said standard. I |
| 21 |
> | believe I don't need then to explain you how far what happens around |
| 22 |
> | PMS is from standard practice. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> You know that real standards aren't a free for all, right? They're |
| 25 |
> usually written by a small group, and then commented on by interested |
| 26 |
> parties when they're already well into being written. Which is exactly |
| 27 |
> what we're doing... |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> | You say you want to avoid endless discussions "in the interest of |
| 30 |
> | getting it finished". Now, if your work is that good, why would there |
| 31 |
> | be any discussions about it? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Because there are a lot of people with opinions out there, and they |
| 34 |
> will all start saying things like "well it would be better if things |
| 35 |
> were like $blah, so you should change it to say $blah". Have a look at |
| 36 |
> the amount of noise that comes up any time this kind of discussion |
| 37 |
> takes place on this list... |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Heck, have a look at the number of people already trying to comment |
| 40 |
> upon how the standard is being written without having seen it... |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> | If it's not good enough, why wouldn't you let us talk about it and |
| 43 |
> | make it better? |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> We will let you (for values of you where your opinion is useful and |
| 46 |
> relevant) discuss it when it is at an appropriate stage. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> | Also, if it goes in the wrong direction, one that |
| 49 |
> | Gentoo devs won't follow, what's the point in finishing it? |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> It isn't going in the wrong direction. The third parties who have |
| 52 |
> access to it will tell you that. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> -- |
| 55 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
| 56 |
> Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 57 |
> Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 58 |
> Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives