Re: UML cooperation

[vmilitaru]

* Andrew Hill <address@hidden> [001030 07:00]:

> > > Freedom is AND will be VALUED over ANY feature.
> > 
> > This "sounds" nice, but where is the meaning behind those powerful words ? 
> > What is your understanding of the concept of freedom then ? I was only 
> > talking about a tool in relation to this project, what's the "sin" in that ?
> 
> This is the FSF's vision. It is a necessity for any GNU project.

Let's put it like this. The gnue project is my first encounter with a GNU 
project, so I didn't know how you do things around here. Let's say that FSF's 
policy of excluding non-open source tools from your toolset comes as a big 
shock to me. This simply because my concept of "freedom" goes something like 
"the freedom to use whatever tool I (I would like to emphasize the "I" here) 
choose" (including non-open source). While in your concept the choice is not 
made by me, but by FSF. Hence my shock: I just don't appreciate that choice 
being taken away from me for whatever well-intentionned reason. I still don't 
get (probably never will) why FSF cares "how" I build my code. As long as that 
code is released under GNU license, what does it matter ??? (I know Derek's 
answer, it's just not very convincing for me).

But I see that you guys (or any other GNU project, I suppose) don't seem to 
have a problem with it. If you're comfortable with it, well, good for you. So 
that's how I would resume this matter. A shock of ideologies, which in adition 
appears to be out of scope on this list (too non-technical). I think I 
understand your (FSF's) point. I hope you understand mine. Let's agree that 
divergent opinions can co-exist.


> I understand. But you have to follow though change processes. This list
> has often been unforunte
> in never following change processes though to their completion (working
> application).  You can't
> keep changing direction every week or month and not every getting
> everywhere.  You need both
> management and leadership, a single enity is very dangours.  Don't ask
> me to go and redo the
> whole sections of code on a weekly basis, well not until we get version
> 0.1.0.

Here we are in agreement. Stay on course, even if I, or other "non-core" 
observers, have other opinions on this or that. I'm only following gnue since 
this spring or summer, while you have been at it for quite some time.

>  
> > Finally, if you want me to shut up, well it's your project, so I'll (try 
> > to) respect that.  But as my grandma would say "You won't go far with That 
> > attitude, young man". I believe you want to attract people willing to put 
> > their free time and effort on your project, not scare them away. Else, you 
> > will see your people shutting down or ... branching out. Trick or treat!
> 
> I for one don't want you to shutup. We have done a lot of work (many
> MB's of just pure source
> code) and i don't want to go backwards and dump all because we didn't
> use the best tools for
> the job but made do with what we had.  So don't ask me to do that
> without real good reasoning.  I definitly want the best software. But i
> am willing to make some comprimises to get there.

I didn't suggest you scrap your current work, I simply suggested that new tools 
are coming along (RR being one). Derek's reply to that suggestion was, perhaps, 
not as diplomatic as it could have been (though he passed his message loud and 
clear). Truth in the software world is that there are more than one way to 
accomplish any given task. Your team has followed a path for quite some time 
now. Let's see where it goes. In the end, for the time being, I am basically an 
observer, though I will try to add input more focussed at adding value to your 
process, instead of focussing at "perceived" structural weaknesses. So let's 
see. Important gnue code seems to be about to emerge.

Regards  - Vio