[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

  • From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:16:54 -0500

>Yes it's exactly what I was saying.
>
>To which I was replied 'let's not get back on the subject', meaning that 
>GMPI is already locked before even being used?

We have had a **TWO YEAR** requirements gathering phase. Its
unfortunate that you were not around to participate, although its
unlikely it would have made much difference: there were very vocal
opponents of MIDI-within-GMPI who argued strongly and I believe
effectively for their position. I was one of the less effective
voices. We compromised, as was appropriate.

Its not locked, because it doesn't exist. The requirements document
is, as I understand it, essentially finished, and I can pretty much
guarantee you that nobody who did participate wants to revisit the
MIDI issue. Not because we all disagree with you, but because there
is, whether you like or not, very strong opinions about it on both
sides of the issue. We dealt with them, and we don't want to go
backwards on it.

--p

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2005