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

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:05:58 -0800

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:32:54PM -0500, Ron Kuper wrote:
> >>>
> So the public can't have the right to send us code?  Or a patch?  Or
> ideas?  What's the point of being open?
> <<<
> 
> The point is, GMPI is going to be for commercial vendors.  A person who
> isn't "in the game" for the few hundred dollars it takes to join the MMA
> isn't engaged in a serious commercial venture, therefore what is their
> purpose in contributing to a commercial standards effort?

I disagree - a standard is a standard for everyone, not just the
industry.  Some of the very best music software out there is very free.
Does that mean the developers do not have valid info?  (of course, we've
had a public req's phase, so yes, they have had input).

My main point is that if it is "open" then it is open.  If it is only
for "the industry", then it's not "open".  It might be visible, but it's
not open.

> As a commercial person, I don't see the point of this unless the MMA is
> involved.  The MMA is "the industry".  Having them involved isn't some
> token gesture to help them feel involved.  It's an overt acknowledgement
> of the changing shape of the music technology industry.

So no commercial app uses any "standard" or other tech unless a
standards body is involved?  Baloney.  The point of this is to get the
best possible API which solves the requirements we have gathered.  Being
under the MMA gives us legitimacy and encourages those who might dismiss
us off-hand to not do so.

I don't mean to be dismissive, I really DO see the usefulness of the
MMA, but we need to be honest about being open. We're either open or
under the MMA, but not both.

That said, we can gerrymander it so that we kindof do both.   As
proposed the API can be owned by the MMA, and the SDK can be open.  The
development of the SDK in parallel with the API will necessarily cause
the API to evolve somewhat openly.

So I'm not against it, but it is a matter of positioning, and to some
degree, spin.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Tim Hockin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 3:12 PM
> To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make
> 
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:56:00PM -0500, Ron Kuper wrote:
> > I was imagining public read-only access to the evolving code and
> > continuing public commentary and discussion on this list.  Membership
> > would be required to actively contribute code, and there would be a
> > separate contributors mailing list hosted privately within the MMA.
> 
> So the public can't have the right to send us code?  Or a patch?  Or
> ideas?  What's the point of being open?
> 
> If it is open, anyone should be able to contribute, albeit with access
> control. No open source project is a free-for-all, they are all
> controlled like you describe, just without the requirement that you pay
> for the right to contribute.
> 
> If we're going to do this in public, which I think we should, then we
> should allow code and ideas from all-comers.  If the MMA is to play a
> role in this AT ALL, it is as a conduit for letting "the industry" feel
> like they have more control than the average joe.  It doesn't mean that
> anyone who works at Steinberg can check in to the code base.  All it
> does is give their opinion a very little extra bit of weight.
> 
> That doesn't mean open checkin rights, it means a steering group of core
> maintainers, a larger group (this group) of "senators", and an unlimited
> group of worker bees (anyone who wants can look at the code and find
> problems or ideas).
> 
> So this is why I am still on the fence about doing this under the MMA.
> It really does nothing but but raise money for the MMA.  It doesn't make
> the effort any more or less legitimate, except in the eyes of the MMA,
> and it potentially excludes other worthwile contributors.
> 
> Still noodlign it..
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 02-2005