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

  • From: Jeff McClintock <jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:52:56 +1300

> ... the reference implementation can be submitted for a stamp of
> approval.

Hi Tim,
You're suggesting that a group outside the MMA designs and implements features. Then forwards those to the MMA for approval?

A development model where the *last* step is approval?

1 - feature suggested
2 - feature designed
3 - feature coded
4 - MMA accepts/rejects feature

What if the MMA's rejects a feature?, would you happily rollback the reference code to an earlier date?, wiping out your own hard work?

Better to submit feature requests to the MMA before work commences.

It seems you want to remove the MMA's influence, yet leverage the MMA's reputation. I feel we can't have it both ways.

Best Regards,
Jeff




----------------------------------------------------------------------
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