I agree with you, but I think that you have misunderstood what I think Nathan was saying. I think that he was trying to say that GE should not contribute every idea ever brought up on their mailing list wholesale, but that GE, internally, should seriously consider every idea and try to have some filtration methodology within itself, so that what comes out of the GE project is the "best of breed" ideas. Then the coders can decide to do/not to do. I think that is a lot of value added, from GE, and it is exactly what Nathan and I discussed when we "merged" GE into OBOS. >Hi, > >>A couple points here. I think we *should* decide things. >Recomendations >>should be finalized for coding when the appropriate time comes. *But* > >You can't really do that. > >At the moment, al the programmers that are involved with OpenBeOS are >involved with it because *they* want The Be Operating System. They know >what their job is - to create an exact replica of the Be Inc, software >that they are copying, they have chosen to make a copy. > >When they have finished, it will just be like any other project : > >If you want something in the OS you have a few choices : > >a) Put a request in to the author for him to code *if he wants to* >b) Add it yourself, and send the diffs to the maintainer to add, *if >they want to* > >If they fail you can fork a new version, and hope that its clearly >better than the original so that it gets included in the original ones >place. > >The GE Project can not dictate what any of the programmers write in >their own spare time, it can be a forum for ideas - but unless the GE >Project does the coding, thats all it ever will be. > >Just my thoughts..... > >Thanks > >Andrew Edward McCall