[indiana-discuss] Technical constitution

[Shawn Walker]

On 10/06/07, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/07, John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd just like to say this right now,
> >
> > I think it's of the utmost importance that if this project is going to
> > go forward, a technical constitution is written and approved ( as in,
> > "under no circumstances... no matter how many people want it, will we
> > integrate unstable software just because it's flashy and trendy" ).
>
> I don't think anything constitutional is necessary or desirable.
>
> Ian's put what could be described as a manifesto for Indiana on
> his blog. I hope to see published aims and a project plan.
> Once we actually see those we'll know what the ground rules are.
>
> (As for unstable software, if you ban that you're going to end up
> with something pretty minimal and useless. Besides, with a
> repository based system it won't be necessary or matter -
> end users can choose what they want to install and their level
> of risk-aversion.)

Indeed, and I think the whole point of a project like this is to find
the right ways to accomplish its goals. Software that fails to help
achieve those goals will naturally be cut or delayed from release. In
the meantime, things like Compiz and Beryl will never be stable unless
someone is willing to help pioneer them in "uncharted waters."

-- 
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright

Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/