Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion about the future of X

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:50:24 AM
Subject: Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion about the future of X
 
Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
>>XFree86 BOD wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one
>>>of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeking
>>>out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is
>>>also in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested
>>>interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and the
>>>future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclose these concerns
>>>within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membership
>>>of that team unviable. As a consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a
>>>member of the XFree86 Core Team.
>>
>>What specifically does the XFree86 bod see as being wrong with the idea of
>>a 'by-invitation-only group' managing X server development? Isn't that
>>exactly what the core team & xfree86 BOD have been doing all along?
>
>
> Not exactly. Long ago, that was probably right, but these days you
> could probably see the Core Team as a bunch of committers to the CVS,
> obviously with their own areas of technical knowledge as well.
> And yes, we've met on occasion, but more in the reality of a coding
> frenzy to work on what we wanted to work on.

It's a spin thing. "Core team" sounds exclusionary, where as "Developers who
have been granted CVS access" sounds pretty inclusive... and even more
inclusive if there is regular induction of developers into that group.

> More recently to talk about
> XFree86 5.0, of which I've sent what I wrote down to this list already.

Doesn't this contradict your assertion that you're just a bunch of committers?
Yes, I appreciate your post today, but would it (or the openness post) have
happened if keithp was still a happy core teamer?

> As for the BOD list, the Core Team doesn't know what goes on within that
> list either, not that it bothers me at all.

I wonder what the BOD is for. It could be clearer.

>>Maybe the core team & bod could explain what is being hinted as a new
>>spirit of openness and how that is proposed to effect the XFree86
>>development process and strategy? Will it mean forinstance an end to the
>>sort of behind-closed-doors discussions that appear to have lead to this
>>announcement?
>
>
> You'd be surprised if you saw what is actually discussed on the Core Team
> lists. Not much at all, apart from recent events that led up to this email.
> I have to say, that a lot of the Core Team is still in the dark on why
> Keith decided to divert his attention away from XFree86 in the way that
> has transpired. We're as much in the dark as you Keith Whitwell (thought I'd
> better add your surname to avoid confusion).

It's hard to see that keithp was unhappy about cvs access as he obviously had
it himself. Similarly he would have been privy at least to the core team
masonic plotting, so that wouldn't have been a big issue for him either.
 
The biggest issue I have with KeithP's mutinous plot was he did not resign.
Other than that who cares?  I mean really.  I think KeithP should have resigned
and then flooded the XFree86 lists with his demands and his new fork.  Now
that would have chutzpah!  But this way he just looks sneaky. 
 
 


I have to wonder if it was he who originated the idea of a split, or whether
he was approached by the evil, frustrated "vested interests" and asked to lead
a more responsive fork, that would allow them to expand the pool of committers
more easily. From mharris' diary, I wouldn't be suprised - although it
doesn't seem like he personally had any knowledge of a coming fork.
 
 
Why do you say that?  I think Mike instigated and wanted this a while ago.
He said as much.  "Him and other distro maintainers".  I would imagine since
he is the maintainer for the de facto standard distro he's a very unhappy camper.
So how do you know that unless he's told you.  Or did you ask?
 
 
Georgina
____________________________________________________
  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

[Index of Archives]     [X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Questions]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [Samba]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux