Re: UI Committee Round 2
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Dec 14, 2015
- 3800 views
At this time there are 131 views and 1 response. I’m not sure how to interpret
Considering how small the active (posting) community is overall, and factoring in that we're a few weeks away from a major holiday, I think the small number of responses is expected.
As for the larger number of total views, that's probably just one person constantly hitting the refresh button to check if there's been any new responses.
Traditionally, the way we handle votes in this forum is with the forumula of yes votes divided by total number of yes and no votes - people who don't vote, or votes made that are explicitly to abstain or be neutral, aren't counted.
So, going by the traditional method, we have unanimous agreement in favor!
I’m not sure how to interpret these numbers except to conclude that as a community, we are not interested in a fully integrated UI/Editor solution.
If that’s true this is good news for several reasons:
For the above reasons, I don't believe this is true of the community in general.
Remember, the genesis for the committee approach was this:
Agreed. But, This topic has plagued this community for a very long time. Honestly, this topic deserves the attention of a strike team. 3 OpenEuphoria volunteers voted in to decide:
- What toolkit to include with OpenEuphoira
- What IDE should be included with OpenEuphoria
- How to make sure that the official toolkit and IDE will work on each platform it's is installed on.
Why 3 and not all? Because years have gone by and as a community this has not been decided on yet. There will be heated debates and long conversations and finally the decision to not include anything will likely again emerge. 3 people have a better chance at making something happen. Those of us that are not part of the strike team will need to accept that not everyone can be happy about the outcome of this decision.
The community as a whole has a hard time settling on an option, so having a strike team that can make the final decision on its behalf was necessary. Therefore, I think it is the job of the committee to come up with the answers to the questions posed in http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/129097.wc and http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/129101.wc (though asking the wider community for input is certainly a part of that process).
To me it is fine to have multiple and competing GUIs for a computing language.
Agreed, we can have an official bundled UI + IDE and several more unofficial ones.
If the committee had come back and said it didn't make sense to have an official UI, then under the terms there's be no choice but to accept it. Fortunately, this is not what was decided.
The concern is that the bugs will come and the docs will not. The bugs wont get fixed and will only compound.
Yeah, that's a valid concern. The problem is, in my experience, telling the volunteer dev team group to stop adding features and only work on the bugs and docs results in features not being added, but also bugs not being fixed and docs not being worked on.
This isn't the first time you've raised concerns about the lifting of the feature freeze, and this isn't the fist time I've raised concerns about your approach. Instead of arguing back and forth, let's try an experiment. Shawn, if your bug fixing only approach can get 4.1.0 officially released before March 1, 2016 then I'll concede the point and adopt your views. (Don't worry about sourceforge braindeadness - if you have any problemed uploading the binaries email either myself or _tom and we'll get them onto the site.)
Do you accept?
The rest of your post sounds like an attempt to deliberately sabotage iup/tee and promote your [censored] personal pet project. 
That would be very strange, considering that this is coming from the lead man on the committee that picked out iup as the solution in the first place.
