Return-Path: <gooseman@on.ON-Luebeck.DE>
Received: from on.ON-Luebeck.DE (on.ON-Luebeck.DE [193.29.188.2])
          by hugin.oden.se (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id FAA19707 for <dlanor@oden.se>; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:50:16 +0100
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
          by on.ON-Luebeck.DE (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id FAA00066 for stik-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:43:30 +0100
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:42:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Ackerman <baldrick@zeus.netset.com>
To: stik@ON-Luebeck.DE
Subject: Re: STIK: New proposal: open development of Stik 2.x
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.91.970117083759.22948B-100000@pallas.amp.uni-hannover.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970119233122.5189A-100000@zeus.netset.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: stik@ON-Luebeck.DE
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stik@ON-Luebeck.DE
X-UIDL: 5046fe832cf62a6c59d1ca2bb18d0809




As I look back over the discussion for open development of STiK what do I 
see?

	I see it degrading down into a fight over one person arguing to 
save a few bytes here and another arguing it would be a wast e of time.

	I have 2 things to add to this whole argument.

	1. Peter you design makes a byzantine beuracracy look effiecint.  
You aim for speed , but in the meanwhile cause the whole code to get 
bloated and unmanageable.  I know you argue this point, but I must say 
I'm spending alot of time reading alot of texts rcently to see if your 
current design can even be considered safe to program for.  I see the 
very great possibility of bugs popping up with no way to easily trace 
their source.  I'm certain from your attitude in the last couple of weeks 
that it inevitably will be blamed on someone other than you peter even if 
it was the general design that was the problem.

	2. The original argument is being ignored.  Most of the people 
that were oringinally involved with STiK (sans Steve who is linkless) had 
all argued for opening up STiK development and use the list for a 
governing body.  You seem to be completely against this idea.  Well let 
me inform you that I'm not the only person with the code and if one of 
the others decided to go ahead with it there is nothing that you or I 
could do to sto them.  I've often wondered in the past why none of them 
had taken a more vocal role in STiK.  Well them seem to be climbing out 
of the woodworks now!  When you first approached me with your project I 
said send me your code and I'll send you the current STiK.  You seem to 
have forgotten this when you announced my full fledged support to the 
list.  I allowed myself to be talked into trying it out, however since 
that time you've pissed so many people off with your attitude that this 
has become a perilous position.

	So what we need to do now is to take a step back, calm down the 
egos a bit o all sides and see what we can do to patch this up.  About 
the last thing we really need (as client authors) is to try and support 3 
or 4 flavours of STiK.  Aside from this worry there are also the OXO and 
Oregon research stacks tht are in development that if they come out and 
make their api easily accesible will make this whole argument moot. 
(translation worthless).

	Dan

.
