I had clicked on the link at your first post. :)
You are right in giving the link (and the implications thereof), but I
believe I am also right in ignoring it.
The thing is, my approach is radically different. I am more interested in how
to achieve the best compromise regardless of the current state of
development. In other words, I am trying to redraw an abstract plan for an
ideal libre distribution that Trisquel can be made into. It's an engineered
dream, if you will. Independent from the current development plan. Actually,
the fact that I'm an outsider to the technical intricacies of the current
development setup is helping me in thinking independent. I may be thrashing
as well, but it is brainstorming afterall.
So, comparing my suggestions with the current state of affairs can lead to
confusion. Please try to forget how things are actually set up in Trisquel
today. Open a fresh page and try redesigning Trisquel development yourself
from scratch (retaining the tenets ofcourse), or suppose that you're going to
fork it and trying to find out how to fork it best, and then we shall be in
the same domain.
I am not saying that Trisquel strategy is wanting, I am just trying to redraw
a Trisquel-like system development blueprint from scratch. Hopefully some
parts of it can be applied to Trisquel's benefit, even if some parts not.
These are the main differences between our points of view, I think.
