On Monday 29 December 2008, Erin Schoenhals wrote: > Alright. You are very explicit in saying that you are not able to be > involved in the development of the project any longer, and I > understood at the time of last reply and currently do understand > perfectly. I now realize that I was asking fairly unspecific, wrong > questions compared to what knowledge I was looking to gain. > > To be more explicit in my questioning, what level of CONTROL do you > wish to have at your option over the goings-on of the project? In > other words, what rights do you feel you and Alfredo reserve over > progress of Window Maker, as originators? Theoretically, you could at > any time delegate authority of the windowmaker.info domain to some > other place at your discretion, which implies a great deal of passive > involvement, if not control. And bearing these circumstances in mind, > I feel that I am put in a position to seek some sort of validation for > certain features that may be implemented in the future; and further, I > would not want to do take the project in a direction that would upset > you, given current conditions.
Not much. What we would like to see is a 1.0 release which should be only about important compatibility stuff and bug fixes. If you want to add new features, a new 2.0 branch could be started. This is so that people who prefer wmaker as it is now will still have a stable 1.0 release they can use in case things get like AfterStep2 in the future. > > On Dec 28, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Dan Pascu wrote: > > On Saturday 27 December 2008, Erin Schoenhals wrote: > >> Sometimes, one must simply choke a bitch. > >> > >> Anyway. Does your current level of participation indicate that you > >> would want to be in a position to bless any new major releases made, > > > > No. I do not have the time to be involved in coordinating new > > releases. > > If people want to ask my opinion about some matter I will give it, > > but that's how far it goes for now. -- Dan -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
