> I'm not so skilled like the developers you cited, but perhaps I can
> contribute with some ideas I didn't see considered. I haven't done it
> yet for the reasons I've written.
I haven't seen any reasons for keeping quiet except that you aren't happy
the MMA is running, it, which is hardly a reas
On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 19:03, Paul Davis wrote:
> the license is part of the agenda.
>From my POV, the license and target plugin developers and users should
be the first item to be agreed with MMA.
> >I want an API that may be extensible ...
> >I want those extensions to be contributed ...
> >I wan
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 20:19, "?rshТoi8-r?Q?" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there any LADCCA discussion mailing list?
Not at the moment. Most of the discussion has taken place on
jackit-devel and this list.
Bob
--
Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can you say "death chambers at Guantanamo with no real trial
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:03:26PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >a) Hope that MMA will reconsider the design phase.
> >b) Develop my own API (hopefully with other free software developers).
> >c) Don't care, and do other things in my free time.
>
> i hope its (c). (a) is important because we've alr
>- I don't wont to be too negative with respect to the GMPI effort,
>because it's a great chance for free software developers to take part in
>the discussion of the spec of what could be become an important
>standard.
its not just a great chance. its the ONLY chance.
>- BTW, after the "Phase 1"
Sorry to bother you all again: just some thoughts...
- I don't wont to be too negative with respect to the GMPI effort,
because it's a great chance for free software developers to take part in
the discussion of the spec of what could be become an important
standard.
- BTW, after the "Phase 1" of
