X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=1lUWCyCWiL12F3xKtIREZrpwAZt1Ui71IHySWgXLZyg=;
	b=CdD/SGrGz29hapOkYcGdIPcMigs8am6FRn2UArHtQaAzBQS7QmwVukwWkoV41D2/UJ
	6ABCAdUD7HT1rEto2FJ44eIP84EFwQUiYP5f6nk+ndjlmnbNskeNJzgfNKFwEq02ztB4
	up4s2qHhrwd1iJgHe75rKBoJ1mcFJ9ffpVp4kJuOOIwSlbSTCrs+23xwKPWMBdhqPZDF
	3wbPMn796t9GUMugP07Q/A4/hVxW6TFNgVBvm3o8PqVWwSKlZ/2I8ozT9TmdWBYZRBeU
	++Iyy4cep6hjxgjuHMrxtl+9hhH+yGBqnuO8vju7CZ248xBKIUYlXFcpKgGjfoqCLblC
	qPOA==
X-Received:	by 10.25.170.210 with SMTP id t201mr23012436lfe.16.1451413826819;
	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:30:24 +0300
From:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Project leadership
Message-ID:	<20151229183023.GE3752@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CANEvwqiM7CKG+WpDRpG4L=HsmSEZ32=CBDyUhuk3ks-SNedL2Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C AT noqsi DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C@noqsi.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:48:34PM -0700, 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] <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.

+1

I believe separating projects (discussions) would made them more fruitful.

- Raw text -