Re: [jos-general] "Final" thoughts (was: [Sister Project] Good idea?)

[John M. <jm...@ma...>]

Hi;

John Leuner wrote:
> 
> > I hate to single you out Gilbert but I think you're the only person
> > arguing for making this a research project. Everyone else that has
> > chimed in has said they want to build a specific implementation of jos
> > and call it JOS.  I am sensing a consensus that people are willing to
> > compromise on a single vision (even if its not exactly what they want)
> > as long as it moves the project forward to creating a jos.  I believe
> > there is an understanding that _any_ initial version of jos is better
> > than nothing and that there will be future opportunities for adjusting
> > the vision or forking off other versions of jos once we get _something_
> > off the ground.
> 
> I agree with you.

Me three.

> > Does anyone else agree with Gilbert?  If so, please speak up.  I'd
> > really like to keep things moving while we have some minimal momentum.
> > As such, if there is no more debate I'd like to push forward and take a
> > vote so we can move on (more debate beyond the established position of
> > Gilbert and myself which seem pretty firm (and so further debate seems
> > pointless)).
> 
> What vote would you like to take?

I also confess to a little confusion here about exactly what we'd be
voting on.  I'm further confused as to whether I actually qualify to
cast a vote or not, so maybe it's a moot point for me.

-jm

-- 
==== John Morrison
==== MAK Technologies Inc.
==== 185 Alewife Brook Parkway, Cambridge, MA 02138
==== http://www.mak.com/
==== vox:617-876-8085 x115
==== fax:617-876-9208
==== jm...@ma...