[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Common event coding
- From: "Jack O'Quin" <joq@xxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 27 Jun 2004 10:07:09 -0500
"Ron Kuper" <RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > 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?
>
> > A good question. Ron?
>
> (I'll ignore the attack on the professional integrity of the MMA members
> in Jack's question, and answer.)
That was not an attack, Ron. The question was prompted by
professional exerience with other standards groups and computer
industry consortia, including POSIX, the Open Software Foundation, and
the AIM alliance (Apple, IBM and Motorola PowerPC workgroup).
I have never worked with the MMA before. All those others were snake
pits of intrigue and jockeying for position and relative advantage.
The MMA may be a bunch of political babes in the woods for all I know.
But, I doubt it. ;-)
> The process we set out last year was to have a public requirements
> phase, followed by a members-only implementation phase, followed by a
> public approval/revision phase, followed by a members-only ratification.
With all due respect, this sounds like a "yes" answer to my original
question.
With these things, the devil is in the details. Turning requirements
into specifications cannot be done successfully by a separate group,
in my experience. Even with the best of intentions there will be
misunderstandings. Most technical decisions involve engineering and
business tradeoffs. Poorly-understood requirements levied by people
longer present carry little weight, especially when compared to one's
personal preconceptions.
> Yes, the implementation is a private effort. But there's a good chance
> that the MMA membership rules and fees will be amended to make it easier
> for more of you to participate in the design phase of the spec... not
> that it's really that hard to become a member today.
That would help. I suspect that your concept of "not that hard" may
not conform to the expectations or budgets of most open software
developers.
> When we do the implementation, we will build a spec and standard that
> meets the requirements this group comes up with. If the implementors go
> off and do their own thing they will have failed.
Good luck! (no sarcasm intended, honest)
--
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: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
