Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 11:41 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> >> > [...] MusicXML [...]
>> >> 
>> >> indeed.
>> >> ;)
>> > I'd actually say it is crucial to have that in order to get LilyPond a
>> > foot in the publishing world. We can't expect publishing houses to
>> > easily switch their well-tested workflows. And it's hard to convince
>> > editors or organizations preparing editions to switch to a toolchain
>> > they can't use for delivery.
>> 
>> As long as the commitment to MusicXML is restricted to the willingness
>> of vigorously applauding whoever is going to do any actual work
>> regarding implementing it or organizing any effort, I don't see the
>> point in proselytizing.

> I think I'm doing enough to _not_ deserve such biting comment.

Reality check.

_Nobody_ is writing a single line of code related to MusicXML.  Nobody
is trying to see how much work it would be to consolidate some of the
MusicXML work from the Philomelos guys back into LilyPond proper.
Nobody is feeling responsible for the current MusicXML infrastructure
and nobody is working on any forward-looking work.

That's our current workforce of people working on MusicXML support.  Now
LilyPond is a project run by volunteers who will work on what is
important to them at the moment.

Many people agree that it would be of strategic importance to change
this and that they will fully stress that importance to everybody who
wants to hear it.  Except that people are preaching to the choir.

If we are talking about "strategic importance", then the question is who
to interest in this strategy.  Because it might mean getting paid
programmers set to the task.

That requires two things: a state where paid programmers can actually
convert time and money into results, and recruiting people actually
interested in funding such efforts.

That means proposals, project plans and so on.  And a code base ready
for moving forward.  And active interests.

We have not managed to pique enough project interest to move to
Guile2.0, a platform providing more active support and libraries, and
"supported" for what it's worth.  At least Guile2.0 is a platform where
one can throw money at developers for the purpose of moving forward.
Guile1.0, in contrast, is at end-of-life.  It is a strategic lock-in.

Who is interested?  People maintaining an interest in keeping music
alive and accessible.  Sort of the thing what Mutopia is supposed to do.
There is nobody interested enough any more in keeping it alive in a
visible way.  There is no project alternative, either.

So moving LilyPond into a strategic position is more than just
vigorously agreeing how great it would be if it supported MusicXML
better.

It would require a large coordinated effort, on multiple issues, by
people vested into it, and seriously trying to get the ball rolling.
And willing to wade through all the required bureaucracy and time sinks
and keep track of the loose ends.

Somebody(TM) should really be doing it, and that's pretty much the state
of one year ago.  Or two years ago.  Or three.  And in the mean time,
things like Mutopia did not actually become more active, but rather
less.  Similar for LilyPond development work: while there is a lot of
activity, the active areas of interest where work is being done have
become fewer.

And that's where we are standing now.  Whether you consider that
"deserved" or not, it's what one has to take into account.

-- 
David Kastrup