[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Common event coding

Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I agree.  If it were *much* harder, the choice would be more obvious.  :)
> But I think we're more or less happy with a compromise concept for now
> (reqs reqs reqs!) :)

votes--.  I am *very* unhappy with this "compromise".

I came back from vacation to find over 500 messages on this subject.
I have an open mind about it, but reading all these messages in a
group was quite disturbing.  I feel that MiG has been jammed down the
throat of this work group as a bald "requirement", refusing to provide
any technical justification.  I think this is mainly a matter of FUD.
People who have clearly been unable to understand the work that was
already done by the technical group stepped in to dictate a design
mistake.

This bodes ill for the future of GMPI.  Many smart people have done a
lot of good work here.  It saddens me to see it undone.

What happens after the requirements phase is complete?  Will the MMA
members go off into a smoke-filled room, ignore all these good ideas,
and do whatever they wanted to in the first place?  

I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like right now.
-- 
  joq

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: