On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:55 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:36AM +0000, Steve Harris wrote: > > > A variety of non-standard implenentations at this point would be a very > > bad thing, and I *will not* be coerced into supporting some illconceived > > extension by fait accompli. > > Agreed, and fair enough. The problem is that there is no formal approval > procedure. So a proposal is effectively accepted in some sense when > 'a number of' developers is using it ...
There is a formal approval mecahnism, its whatever Richard will bless. He contacted me off-list: he is still around but hasnt been activily participating. I'l pass on whtaever we eventually agree on and he will either send it back with red ink on it or give it the OK. > I'd prefer a more organised approach, but can't see one immediately. I dont think there is any subset of LADSPA developers who would trust any other subset to agree on a sane spec, so no :) - Steve
