The way to fix 'openamiga'...

[DaveP]

I agree with iamaboringperson's original analysis on the locked thread. OpenAmiga could be a hell of a lot more than just a list of someones favorite APIs.

Standards are an opportunity not necessarily to select the most pervasive technology or a favoured technology but the best one - and generaly in a vendor neutral format.

I see no process for RFCs and therefore no means by which to get agreement. Its a fait accompli.

I would like standard by which I could use preprocessor conditionals to mark out an "Open Amiga" compliant version of my code which would lose all the bells and whistles from the AOS4 version. However with this, it ain't going to happen.

Finally there are two reasons to have a "standard", firsly to list the syntax that should be used to become compliant ( actually LIST them and not just say MUI vs x.y ) but also the semantics of the call.

For an example of how a real industry standard should work nip over to the OMG and take a peek at their process and standard of documentation.

[DaveP]

I'm sure if anyone wants to help out instead of complaining noone is stopping them.

This prickly attitude to feedback isn't going to help.

Because you have no infrastructure to support or report the discussion leading towards a first draft the discussion is happening elsewhere.

Because you have no published process ( that I am aware of ) people are going to discuss it elsewhere, all over the shop and in a disconnected manner.

Myself and others will be communicating our expectations as we can - on forums that already are discussing the topic. If you intend to exceed or meet those expetations all well and good - but I still am none the clearer for your response.

Finally does one have to "contribute" to the back office process development in order to have a voice?

PS:  Where do I specifically criticise MUI in the post you refer to?

PPS: You say that you will go on to possibly replace MUI in the future - how will you handle deprecation then and backwards compatibility? Just drop it or extend it continually until you have #y components? You see this issue has to be handled so that people know how stable the spec is likely to be - if you are putting out the message now that component X is going to be replaced then is it worth my while writing using component X?

[DaveP]

Sure OK well maybe ask Wayne to create a forum on here called OpenAmiga, then when the site is fully up and running it can just embed the forum hosted on Amiga.org.

Then the rest of us can throw in ideas and debate the nitty gritty in one place and you can just weed out the stuff you don't need.

[DaveP]

@mdma

Hey I meant no offense - sorry to hear that you have been through a rough spot.

Will keep any further feedback back until you open the fora :-)