X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Message-ID: <56819B76.3060901@xs4all.nl> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:28:38 +0100 From: "Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110429 Fedora/2.0.14-1.fc13 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Project leadership References:

<43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C AT noqsi DOT com> In-Reply-To: <43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C@noqsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com John Doty wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Marvin Dickens (mpdickens AT gmail DOT com > ) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com > ]

> wrote: > >> Currently, badly needed development rarely occurs because those >> people who are capable do not contribute because they are put off >> by a few users who want NOTHING to change because it does not >> fit their personal work flow. >> > > There are really two projects here: The original gEDA (now confusingly > called geda-gaf), and pcb. I think everyone agrees that pcb needs a > lot of work. On the other hand, geda-gaf is matiure, effective, and > easy to extend with scripting. Pcb development requires a great deal > of collaboration. Geda-gaf development mostly does not, as anybody can > write and publish a script. > > There would be much less controversy if these projects were separated. > They represent radically different development patterns: conflating > them causes much confusion and strife. > > John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. > > http://www.noqsi.com/ > > jpd AT noqsi DOT com > > > Hi John, Please try to accept that two or more completely different projects can share a single mailing list. IMHO, there is no controversy, confusion or strife. Kind regards, Bert Timmerman.