X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on fly.srk.fer.hr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=6.3 tests=ALL_TRUSTED
	autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 23:18:11 +0200
From: "Ivan Stankovic (pokemon AT fly DOT srk DOT fer DOT hr) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: "Edward Hennessy (ehennes AT sbcglobal DOT net) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
Message-ID: <20150707211811.GB2780@alpha2>
References: <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
 <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
 <CAM2RGhSb=z35RYaJQmh-S4N73ng9WOj4ySmy_05J-7KGdBv8SA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <CAOP4iL3VBaS+bJhKJDk=_iuBSjDPY2-pvMdz5zPnf7A_rwD0Jw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <20150703191532 DOT GB21182 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1507040542390 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
 <20150707160130 DOT GA18930 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <1FB0D727-9B89-4017-8FDE-7D9EEBE1589D AT sbcglobal DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1FB0D727-9B89-4017-8FDE-7D9EEBE1589D@sbcglobal.net>
X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23+89 (0255b37be491) (2014-03-12)
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 10:20:10AM -0700, Edward Hennessy (ehennes AT sbcglobal DOT net) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> The likelihood that this thread, including the input from all the
> developers and users, sets direction of the gEDA is slim. 

I completely agree.

> One developer either dives in and changes things, or goes somewhere else
> and starts a new version. I'd like to see some process that resolves
> the conflicting priorities of the community, can set direction, and
> allow multiple developers to coordinate as a team.

I do not see the need to "resolve conflicting priorities".  It is not
like somebody is going to prevent somebody from coding.  The code is out
there.  Everyone can contribute and make an improvement.  Or a fork.

In my opinion, any effort that waits on the community consensus is
doomed.  The only approach that has a chance of success is to just
do the work.  It's not like this is news.  I remember the moment
the -dev list was isolated from the -user list, for exactly the
same reason.

-- 
Ivan Stankovic, pokemon AT fly DOT srk DOT fer DOT hr

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM, 
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"