On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Henry Litwhiler <[email protected]> wrote:
> We don't want this to become "StatusNet with modifications" - we want it > to have its own, unique codebase - not just a distributed SatusNet > implementation. Ok, that's clear, at least. I've heard others here say that, though I'm not sure who 'we' is yet. I would be much less worried if I were hearing stuff like "We want it to meet these documented requirements" (and a link to specs, designs etc.), rather than "above all, we want it to be our own stand-alone software project". There may be all kinds of good reasons for making a fresh clean start. For me, "we want our own project" isn't enough. Given GNU's pivotal role in the free software scene, I think there is much more influence to had by working on interop between diverse software systems. > I am > saying, however, that we would be better off writing our own, basic > StatusNet-style microblogging implementation that suits our needs. It > wouldn't have to be anything fancy, for the time being - it would just > have to be a way for testers to interface with the (arguably more > import, for now) underlying GNU Social protocol and backbone software. +1 on the protocols being more important. But protocols, as much as software packages, need requirements and design. Are there any drafts kicking around that are ready for review? cheers, Dan
