Re: Queue

["Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>]

Marin David Condic <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in
message news:9u136q$aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> Well, people posting a variety of ideas is not all bad - but at some point
> this has to narrow down to a set of optional courses of action and a
> decision needs to be taken as to which option to persue. If a set of three
> or four options were posted on AdaPower & a vote taken, we could probably
> all ralley around the flag and start arguing about how to
> enhance/improve/extend the chosen course of development.

I think this is what I suggested a while back, but I am not sure this is
what you advocate, if I understand the rest of your message. Are you in
favor of this approach?

>  The problem is that this is barely a democracy - if
> even close to that. Any one or more of us can pick up our marbles and go
> home at any time and if enough of us do that, the whole effort collapses.
>

That's good, in my book. I don't think this is likely to happen, and if it
does it means there are better alternatives - which is good in and of
itself.

> IMHO, if we're serious about wanting this, we ought to agree on some set
of
> choices/design directions/whatever and toss a coin to select a winner.
From
> there, I'm sure we could collaborate to get any enhancements, extensions
or
> implementation done.

This is what I started with. My original message on this was a list of goals
and design criteria. Most poster thought it is better to start with
something more concrete like Ted's strawman. In retrospect I think this was
indeed very useful, and indeed essential. But perhaps the time has come to
revisit the list of goal and try to produce a more polished version.

Ehud