Re: [Gnu-arch-users] community spirit

[Thomas Lord]

    > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>

    >     Thomas> One can conclude, therefore, that the ubuntu crew were not
    >     Thomas> working with /anything at all/ that might be called
    >     Thomas> /community spirit/.

    > One can, but, like forking, just because one _can_ doesn't mean one
    > _should_.

    > Do you know something about what they're planning that hasn't been
    > posted to the lists?  

No.

    > If not, I'd say that the presentation of a fait
    > accompli was, uh, "less than graceful", but humans are fallible.

Right.  And that's about the spirit of my gripe, too.

I do have concerns that a "UI Experimentation fork", gracelessly
managed, will lead to unpleasant design constraints about changes to
the arch core, either in api, implementation, or "arch protocol".  I'm
concerned about their complete indifference to the patch flow called
for by the process spec which /should/ have been a real boon to them.

I strongly suspect that there are really nice procedures and
infrastructures for a fork that would mediate those potential problems
while also making the fork easier to manage but what we've skipped
over, with their recent announcement, the step where we have a chance
to consider setting up such procedures and infrastructures.

I'm most emphatically /not/ declaring any kind of crisis.  We'll see
what happens and, most likely, just muddle through and things will
work out just swell.  But I do think that the uncivility and
disruptiveness of their tactical approach is worthy of note, at least
in passing.

-t