weasel at beyondnormal.org
Fri Jul 16 08:05:21 PDT 2004
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 10:54 -0700, jeremy at jutley.org wrote:
> > Matthias B. said the following on 15-07-2004 13:29:
> >> Don't tempt me :-) Or maybe DO tempt me. I might even start something
> >> like this. I could at least write up a mission statement. Hmmm.
> > I'd love to see one and I'd even offer to help write one. LFS really
> > needs a clear mission statement to resolve the current conflicts. And if
> > we can't seem to combine the functionalist/educationalist (/minimalist)
> > approaches, perhaps an internal *) split would seem to be the wisest
> > course of action.
> > *) Internal meaning that both books would still be produced under the
> > LFS flag and no forking would occur. This is based on the assumption
> > that there is considerable overlap between both ideologies and that
> > neither party has an interest in forking.
> This is what I tried to do, and got flamed for it. Don't think this will
while sometimes i'm frustrated enough to wish for a fork, its bad. I do
however think the only way to make everyone happy, is to have 2 LFS
books. Standard LFS, and BELFS. The only real arguments i've heard
against it, is that it would take more man power to maintain. There are
apparently enough people on both sides of this debate to handle both, so
whats the problem? Except for the people who were mad because the felt
belfs was a fork everyone seemed happy.
"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."
More information about the lfs-dev