From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fdc75443ea18fb32
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-27 14:41:10 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.huji.ac.il!not-for-mail
From: "Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Queue
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:35:21 +0200
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Message-ID: <9u14o2$d61$1@news.huji.ac.il>
References: <yUBM7.7695$4d6.1768979@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>
 <BWq3g0s2usk2@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <%QRM7.39743$xS6.65958@www.newsranger.com> <9u0qhb$pq5$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <u07tltbt28eq1d@corp.supernews.com> <9u0ujd$rhg$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <9u10bt$ake$1@news.huji.ac.il> <9u136q$aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: di4-29.dialin.huji.ac.il
X-Trace: news.huji.ac.il 1006900803 13505 132.64.14.29 (27 Nov 2001 22:40:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.huji.ac.il
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:40:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17070
Date: 2001-11-28T00:35:21+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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