[forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion about the future of X
georgina o economou
forum@XFree86.Org
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:17:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
--------------Boundary-00=_P5825X34G6G000000000
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative;
boundary="------------Boundary-00=_P5820774G6G000000000"
--------------Boundary-00=_P5820774G6G000000000
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: forum@XFree86.Org=0D
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:50:24 AM=0D
To: forum@XFree86.Org=0D
Cc: dri-devel=0D
Subject: Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion about
the future of X=0D
=0D
Alan Hourihane wrote:=0D
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:=0D
> =0D
>>XFree86 BOD wrote:=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>>It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one=
=0D
>>>of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeki=
ng=0D
>>>out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is=0D
>>>also in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested=0D
>>>interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and the=0D
>>>future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclose these concer=
ns=0D
>>>within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membershi=
p=0D
>>>of that team unviable. As a consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a=0D
>>>member of the XFree86 Core Team.=0D
>>=0D
>>What specifically does the XFree86 bod see as being wrong with the idea=
of
=0D
>>a 'by-invitation-only group' managing X server development? Isn't that =
=0D
>>exactly what the core team & xfree86 BOD have been doing all along?=0D
> =0D
> =0D
> Not exactly. Long ago, that was probably right, but these days you=0D
> could probably see the Core Team as a bunch of committers to the CVS,=0D
> obviously with their own areas of technical knowledge as well.=0D
> And yes, we've met on occasion, but more in the reality of a coding=0D
> frenzy to work on what we wanted to work on. =0D
=0D
It's a spin thing. "Core team" sounds exclusionary, where as "Developers =
who
=0D
have been granted CVS access" sounds pretty inclusive... and even more =0D
inclusive if there is regular induction of developers into that group.=0D
=0D
> More recently to talk about=0D
> XFree86 5.0, of which I've sent what I wrote down to this list already.=
=0D
=0D
Doesn't this contradict your assertion that you're just a bunch of
committers? =0D
Yes, I appreciate your post today, but would it (or the openness post) ha=
ve =0D
happened if keithp was still a happy core teamer?=0D
=0D
> As for the BOD list, the Core Team doesn't know what goes on within tha=
t=0D
> list either, not that it bothers me at all.=0D
=0D
I wonder what the BOD is for. It could be clearer.=0D
=0D
>>Maybe the core team & bod could explain what is being hinted as a new =0D
>>spirit of openness and how that is proposed to effect the XFree86 =0D
>>development process and strategy? Will it mean forinstance an end to th=
e =0D
>>sort of behind-closed-doors discussions that appear to have lead to thi=
s =0D
>>announcement?=0D
> =0D
> =0D
> You'd be surprised if you saw what is actually discussed on the Core Te=
am=0D
> lists. Not much at all, apart from recent events that led up to this em=
ail
=0D
> I have to say, that a lot of the Core Team is still in the dark on why=0D
> Keith decided to divert his attention away from XFree86 in the way that=
=0D
> has transpired. We're as much in the dark as you Keith Whitwell (though=
t I
d=0D
> better add your surname to avoid confusion).=0D
=0D
It's hard to see that keithp was unhappy about cvs access as he obviously
had =0D
it himself. Similarly he would have been privy at least to the core team =
=0D
masonic plotting, so that wouldn't have been a big issue for him either.=0D
=0D
The biggest issue I have with KeithP's mutinous plot was he did not resig=
n.=0D
Other than that who cares? I mean really. I think KeithP should have
resigned=0D
and then flooded the XFree86 lists with his demands and his new fork. No=
w =0D
that would have chutzpah! But this way he just looks sneaky. =0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
I have to wonder if it was he who originated the idea of a split, or whet=
her
=0D
he was approached by the evil, frustrated "vested interests" and asked to
lead =0D
a more responsive fork, that would allow them to expand the pool of
committers =0D
more easily. From mharris' diary, I wouldn't be suprised - although it =0D
doesn't seem like he personally had any knowledge of a coming fork.=0D
=0D
=0D
Why do you say that? I think Mike instigated and wanted this a while ago=
=2E=0D
He said as much. "Him and other distro maintainers". I would imagine si=
nce=0D
he is the maintainer for the de facto standard distro he's a very unhappy
camper.=0D
So how do you know that unless he's told you. Or did you ask?=0D
=0D
=0D
Georgina=20
--------------Boundary-00=_P5820774G6G000000000
Content-Type: Text/HTML;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<META content=3D"IncrediMail 1.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<!--IncrdiXMLRemarkStart>
<IncrdiX-Info>
<X-FID>FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000</X-FID>
<X-FVER></X-FVER>
<X-CNT>;</X-CNT>
</IncrdiX-Info>
<IncrdiXMLRemarkEnd-->
</HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"BACKGROUND-POSITION: 0px 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 5px=
10px 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"" scroll=3D=
yes ORGYPOS=3D"0" X-FVER=3D"3.0">
<TABLE id=3DINCREDIMAINTABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D2 width=3D"100=
%" border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD id=3DINCREDITEXTREGION style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; CURSOR: auto; FONT-F=
AMILY: Arial" width=3D"100%">
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV id=3DIncrediOriginalMessage><I>-------Original Message-------</I></D=
IV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV id=3Dreceivestrings>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>From:</B></I> <A href=3D"m=
ailto:forum@XFree86.Org">forum@XFree86.Org</A></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>Date:</B></I> Thursday, Ma=
rch 20, 2003 11:50:24 AM</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>To:</B></I> <A href=3D"mai=
lto:forum@XFree86.Org">forum@XFree86.Org</A></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>Cc:</B></I> <A href=3D"mai=
lto:dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net">dri-devel</A></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>Subject:</B></I> Re: [foru=
m] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion about the future of X</=
DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Alan Hourihane wrote:<BR>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000=
, Keith Whitwell wrote:<BR>> <BR>>>XFree86 BOD wrote:<BR>>>=
;<BR>>><BR>>>>It has been brought to the attention of the =
XFree86 Core Team that one<BR>>>>of its members, Keith Packard, =
has been actively (but privately) seeking<BR>>>>out support for =
a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is<BR>>>>also=
in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested<BR>>&g=
t;>interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and th=
e<BR>>>>future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclos=
e these concerns<BR>>>>within the context of the XFree86 Core Te=
am, which makes his membership<BR>>>>of that team unviable. As a=
consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a<BR>>>>member of the X=
Free86 Core Team.<BR>>><BR>>>What specifically does the XFree=
86 bod see as being wrong with the idea of <BR>>>a 'by-invitation-o=
nly group' managing X server development? Isn't that <BR>>>exactly =
what the core team & xfree86 BOD have been doing all along?<BR>> <=
BR>> <BR>> Not exactly. Long ago, that was probably right, but thes=
e days you<BR>> could probably see the Core Team as a bunch of committ=
ers to the CVS,<BR>> obviously with their own areas of technical knowl=
edge as well.<BR>> And yes, we've met on occasion, but more in the rea=
lity of a coding<BR>> frenzy to work on what we wanted to work on. <BR=
><BR>It's a spin thing. "Core team" sounds exclusionary, where as "Develo=
pers who <BR>have been granted CVS access" sounds pretty inclusive... and=
even more <BR>inclusive if there is regular induction of developers into=
that group.<BR><BR>> More recently to talk about<BR>> XFree86 5.0,=
of which I've sent what I wrote down to this list already.<BR><BR>Doesn'=
t this contradict your assertion that you're just a bunch of committers? =
<BR>Yes, I appreciate your post today, but would it (or the openness post=
) have <BR>happened if keithp was still a happy core teamer?<BR><BR>> =
As for the BOD list, the Core Team doesn't know what goes on within that<=
BR>> list either, not that it bothers me at all.<BR><BR>I wonder what =
the BOD is for. It could be clearer.<BR><BR>>>Maybe the core team &=
amp; bod could explain what is being hinted as a new <BR>>>spirit o=
f openness and how that is proposed to effect the XFree86 <BR>>>dev=
elopment process and strategy? Will it mean forinstance an end to the <BR=
>>>sort of behind-closed-doors discussions that appear to have lead=
to this <BR>>>announcement?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> You'd be sur=
prised if you saw what is actually discussed on the Core Team<BR>> lis=
ts. Not much at all, apart from recent events that led up to this email.<=
BR>> I have to say, that a lot of the Core Team is still in the dark o=
n why<BR>> Keith decided to divert his attention away from XFree86 in =
the way that<BR>> has transpired. We're as much in the dark as you Kei=
th Whitwell (thought I'd<BR>> better add your surname to avoid confusi=
on).<BR><BR>It's hard to see that keithp was unhappy about cvs access as =
he obviously had <BR>it himself. Similarly he would have been privy at le=
ast to the core team <BR>masonic plotting, so that wouldn't have been a b=
ig issue for him either.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The biggest issue I have with KeithP's mutinous plot was he did not =
resign.</DIV>
<DIV>Other than that who cares? I mean really. I think KeithP=
should have resigned</DIV>
<DIV>and then flooded the XFree86 lists with his demands and his new fork=
=2E Now </DIV>
<DIV>that would have chutzpah! But this way he just looks sneaky.&n=
bsp; </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>I have to wonder if it was he who originated the idea of a s=
plit, or whether <BR>he was approached by the evil, frustrated "vested in=
terests" and asked to lead <BR>a more responsive fork, that would allow t=
hem to expand the pool of committers <BR>more easily. From mharris' diary=
, I wouldn't be suprised - although it <BR>doesn't seem like he personall=
y had any knowledge of a coming fork.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why do you say that? I think Mike instigated and wanted this a=
while ago.</DIV>
<DIV>He said as much. "Him and other distro maintainers". I w=
ould imagine since</DIV>
<DIV>he is the maintainer for the de facto standard distro he's a very un=
happy camper.</DIV>
<DIV>So how do you know that unless he's told you. Or did you ask?<=
/DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Georgina </DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD id=3DINCREDIFOOTER width=3D"100%">
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=3D"100%"></TD>
<TD id=3DINCREDISOUND vAlign=3Dbottom align=3Dmiddle></TD>
<TD id=3DINCREDIANIM vAlign=3Dbottom align=3Dmiddle></TD></TR></TBODY></T=
ABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SPAN id=3DIncrediStamp><SPAN dir=3Dltr><F=
ONT face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=3D2>______________________=
______________________________<BR><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><=
A href=3D"http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=3D309&lang=3D9">=
<IMG alt=3D"" hspace=3D0 src=3D"cid:7010735A-E514-4AE7-BA5B-78AA43770C92"=
align=3Dbaseline border=3D0></A> <I>IncrediMail</I> - <B>Email has=
finally evolved</B> - </FONT><A href=3D"http://www.incredimail.com/redir=
=2Easp?ad_id=3D309&lang=3D9"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>=
<B><U>Click Here</U></B></FONT></A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></BODY></HTML>
--------------Boundary-00=_P5820774G6G000000000--
--------------Boundary-00=_P5825X34G6G000000000
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="IMSTP.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <7010735A-E514-4AE7-BA5B-78AA43770C92>
R0lGODlhFAAPALMIAP9gAM9gAM8vAM9gL/+QL5AvAGAvAP9gL////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAACH/C05FVFNDQVBFMi4wAwEAAAAh+QQJFAAIACwAAAAAFAAPAAAEVRDJSaudJuudrxlEKI6B
URlCUYyjKpgYAKSgOBSCDEuGDKgrAtC3Q/R+hkPJEDgYCjpKr5A8WK9OaPFZwHoPqm3366VKyeRt
E30tVVRscMHDqV/u+AgAIfkEBWQACAAsAAAAABQADwAABBIQyUmrvTjrzbv/YCiOZGmeaAQAIfkE
CRQACAAsAgABABAADQAABEoQIUOrpXIOwrsPxiQUheeRAgUA49YNhbCqK1kS9grQhXGAhsDBUJgZ
AL2Dcqkk7ogFpvRAokSn0p4PO6UIuUsQggSmFjKXdAgRAQAh+QQFCgAIACwAAAAAFAAPAAAEEhDJ
Sau9OOvNu/9gKI5kaZ5oBAAh+QQJFAAIACwCAAEAEAANAAAEShAhQ6ulcg7Cuw/GJBSF55ECBQDj
1g2FsKorWRL2CtCFcYCGwMFQmBkAvYNyqSTuiAWm9ECiRKfSng87pQi5SxCCBKYWMpd0CBEBACH5
BAVkAAgALAAAAAAUAA8AAAQSEMlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmgEADs=
--------------Boundary-00=_P5825X34G6G000000000--