Re: Questions

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that 
Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:

> When someone wants to submit a patch that's one
> thing, but if someone expresses a desire to add more then they become
> responsible for it.

And yet I see bugs dating back to 2003 that are still unassigned.  If
someone has taken responsibility for the involved classes/frameworks, why
aren’t these issues being resolved?  If nobody is taking responsibility,
it makes GNUstep a very hard thing to recommend to people.

> This is plainly beyond the scope of a mission statement.  Also saying we
> are "bringing Cocoa to other platforms" clearly implies that there is a
> path.

I disagree.  Maybe it’s because the US is in a big election years, but I
have *zero* trust today that anyone has a plan for anything they say
unless they explicitly state said plan with a fair degree of detail.  It
may not be as pithy as a shorter “executive summary mission statement, but
my argument is that a full plan is *necessary* to organize the modest
resources the project has available to meet the stated goals.

> > We can’t just ignore the big gorilla in the room (Apple), either.
> 
> Sure we can.  We can mention we are compatible with something by name.  As
> long as there is not a possibility of brand confusing we are clear in the
> legal sense, so there is no sense making a huge deal about this.  In my 20
> years on this project there has not been a single stirring of the fruit
> basket. ;)   I don't expect one now unless we become wildly popular which,
> given how things are going, I believe that Apple is the absolute least of
> our concerns.

You misunderstand my mention of Apple.  It’s not to highlight them as a
threat, but as a potential resource of development talent given their
status as the world’s primary Cocoa platform.  Outreach doesn’t appear
to be part of the plan, and that remains a huge problem for GNUstep.

> The mission statement I gave is very short, understandable, and crystal
> clear such that anyone with a primary / grade school education would be
> able to follow it.

And yet in a decade when ObjC interest has exploded, it doesn’t appear
GNUstep has taken advantage of that.  So, based on the evidence,
do you *really* think you’re getting your message out there clearly? I
argue that setting specific goals, and measuring progress against them,
is both far more scientific and far more clear than something that is
meant for children.

>  http://mediawiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Writing_portable_code
> 
> This page details both directions.  The issue is that it is not linked to
> on the site so it is not immediately obvious how this should work.

No, the *real* issue is that nobody knows for sure if it is an accurate
representation of the current state of GNUstep.  The issue is that code
still comes first, documentation *may* follow, and then it seems that
things are often left to rot.  I would argue, for example, that in makes
no sense in 2016 to be talking about NeXT anymore, except as a historical
excerpt.

That’s why I say this is a problem that cannot be fixed by just
committing more code.  It needs an organizational shift, which should
means a frank discussion on what the real vision of the project is
going to be over the next 10 years (hell, I’d even take 4 years).  But
nobody on the inside wants to talk about the heart of the matter, and
that makes most people on the outside decide to stay on the outside.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly