Re: [emacs-wiki-discuss] Re: muse, emacs-wiki (planner even)

[TC]

Michael wrote (on muse):
> I'm feeling just a bit burned out with this task, which partly 
> explains the long delay.

So if there's only one person working on this (much appreciated BTW), 
and everyone else seems to be bashing away with emacs-wiki itself then:

a. Is muse ever going to be able to replace emacs-wiki/planner?  I mean, 
we may effectively have a pre-emptive fork in progress, where the 
blessed (by virtue of being part of emacs) future muse branch will 
wither before it gets started.  Being blessed won't help muse compete 
with emacs-wiki having lots of users, especially those as mad daft keen 
as Sacha :-)

b. *Why* bother then?  I got the impression from your mail that interest 
in muse was welcome but rare.  Don't get me wrong; I understand the 
technical attractions of muse.  But they don't *appear* to be compelling 
to many people.  Why burn yourself out if no one is really that bothered?

And - and this is a *really* dangerous and provocative question to ask[1]:

c. Sacha et al, why don't you guys just stop emacs-wiki/planner 
development forthwith and everyone just switch to the muse branch? 
(That's really not a rhetorical question.) We'd take a hit in the short 
term, but pretty soon muse would be the bee's knees.

tc

[1] Because it screams to be answered with, "And why don't *you*, TC, 
help out, instead of pontificating about what others should do!?"  Which 
is a perfectly reasonable scream. Answer: because I have time to write 
emails like this, but not to learn lisp and the muse code well enough to 
help.  If writing emails like this is worse than shutting up entirely, 
then I can shut up :-)