1. One direction idea concept
- Posted by Terry Constant <pass at constantsite.com>
Sep 20, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 21, 2006
Rob,
Here is one idea, thrown out for discussion -- I am not heavily invested
in it. So here is the idea.
Have a committee to direct/approve changes, that is, changes for the
official or main or standard product or products. We could have one
official (or whatever we call it) version that had approved changes in
it. We could have more than one official line, such as, the standard
procedural line that we have now, an OOP line, a NET line, or whatever.
Right now I am only going to talk about one line.
Having an official version lets people, who so desire, continue to
develop programs knowing that the main versions will continue to exist.
Anyone could work with other versions if preferred.
I am going to stop following this thought, since there are many
variations and possibilities.
As to who approves. I suggest a committee/group of 4, with Rob always
being one of the four. Give Rob two votes, so that the four have a total
of 5 votes. Thus Rob has the biggest voice which I like. But if 3 people
(the other three) disagree, then their three votes could override Rob.
That is 75% could override. Thus, Rob maintains the big voice, but the
voice of the majority of users could be heard and followed also.
Again, the particulars are not so important to me as the concept. Rob
would continue to be able to exert his influence and keep the
development stable, but the majority could override him from time to
time, on changes/improvements that they see as important.
My goal is to find a way to maintain stability for our product while
still allowing for the implementation of good ideas.
What think ye?
Terry
2. Re: One direction idea concept
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com>
Sep 20, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 21, 2006
Terry Constant wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> Here is one idea, thrown out for discussion -- I am not heavily invested
> in it. So here is the idea.
>
> Have a committee to direct/approve changes, that is, changes for the
> official or main or standard product or products. We could have one
> official (or whatever we call it) version that had approved changes in
> it. We could have more than one official line, such as, the standard
> procedural line that we have now, an OOP line, a NET line, or whatever.
> Right now I am only going to talk about one line.
>
> Having an official version lets people, who so desire, continue to
> develop programs knowing that the main versions will continue to exist.
> Anyone could work with other versions if preferred.
>
> I am going to stop following this thought, since there are many
> variations and possibilities.
>
> As to who approves. I suggest a committee/group of 4, with Rob always
> being one of the four. Give Rob two votes, so that the four have a total
> of 5 votes. Thus Rob has the biggest voice which I like. But if 3 people
> (the other three) disagree, then their three votes could override Rob.
> That is 75% could override. Thus, Rob maintains the big voice, but the
> voice of the majority of users could be heard and followed also.
>
> Again, the particulars are not so important to me as the concept. Rob
> would continue to be able to exert his influence and keep the
> development stable, but the majority could override him from time to
> time, on changes/improvements that they see as important.
>
> My goal is to find a way to maintain stability for our product while
> still allowing for the implementation of good ideas.
>
> What think ye?
>
> Terry
>
>
Hi Terry,
Sounds ok to me, as long as it doesnt preempt our having the option
of being able to also create our own personal verions, and we can
sell or offer free if we wish. I doubt i would charge for mine
anyway, but hey, you never know.
With all the changes that could come up it's starting to just
look like C++ anyway, which isnt really bad though.
Take care,
Al
E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
From "Black Knight":
"I can live with losing the good fight,
but i can not live without fighting it".
"Well on second thought, maybe not."
