This project is going [multiple directions, mistaken for a lack , of direction.]

[Pat Wendorf]

Tril wrote:

> The Retro project has potential of being a tunes LLL.  If you recall the
> goals of the LLL project, it is a temporary being which will be discarded
> AS SOON AS THE SYSTEM IS BOOTSTRAPPED.  In fact, many members (myself
> included) believe that a LLL is not the way to proceed.  As Fare and I
> have always said, whoever does the work, decides what work is done.  I'm
> still at work in the opposite direction as Tom- starting with HLL first.
> The philosophy of TUNES is that everyone CAN go their own direction.  Is
> it possible that this philosophy is contrary to the very notion most
> people have of an "organization?"  If so, then TUNES IS NOT AN
> ORGANIZATION.  Organizations assume that disorder is natural, then try to
> impose structure on that.  Hence they always fail, because they believe
> entropy is natural, and themselves are unnatural.  Self-destruction is
> inevitable.  The non-organization (such as TUNES) assumes that order is
> natural.  In other words, I believe that with everyone working in his or
> her own direction, THE PROJECT CONVERGES.  This is why I can never claim
> to be speaking on behalf of the project.  It's impossible to try.  The
> TUNES project will still continue, even if ALL the members leave,
> including me, Fare, everyone.  I'm not saying someone else will form a
> tunes organization.  It doesn't need one!  It will happen anyway.  Relax
> and stop trying to impose order on disorder. It has the opposite effect.

I agree completely with this.  But I have had some suggestions from some members
who will remain anonymous, to go along with the ordered chaos theme:

No more Tunes project.  (gasp)

All I imply is that, instead of being a project
why not make it a discussion group, for all the OS/Lang projects that are out
there
(at least the ones that wish to contribute).
Simply put, it would be a place to discuss the concepts we have, and
real projects may or may not form from the discussions.  In essence, no matter
what views we have, or what projects we are working on, there is a central place
to
allow us all to discuss.  We would all be the Tunes group, not the Tunes
project.  I only suggest this in light of the fact that (notwithstanding miracle
or
otherworldly event) we will never ALL agree on the same project goals.

This is not a stretch of the imagination... it's somewhat like what we have now.
I believe as long as we are NOT held here by the idea of a project, but rather the

camaraderie of being people who want to make computers better, we will at the
least
stay in communication... all of us.  That is what is necessary.  We don't
understand everything, some of us don't even have the time to understand
everything, but as long as we communicate, there is the chance that the
OS project convergence CAN happen.  If you think about it, our
only goal is to make computers better...  if that happens to be making a 5th
generation language, a Linux hack, or a totally OO OS, we will be able to discuss
it
here.

In essence, if there is no project, there is no pressure to create.  There is only

the choice to contribute to discussion or not, and to join one of the efforts.
In that way, Brian's project is a Tunes Sub Project, as is Retro and UniOS.

I think this is a natural extension to what we have Now.  Tunes as a center
of organization, which may or may not evolve into a project, based on the
work and development of the sub projects.

All members of Tunes do not have to be part of a project, just part of the
mail discussion list.  After that, they can choose to start a project, or join
one, but it would not be mandatory.

I also propose that all the documents and resources from the sub projects
be moved to the main page, in that way everything is shared.  Trill has a
nice server, and it's well suited for the task at hand.

I'm sure this has all been proposed before, but now, maybe it's the only way
to keep all the members.  From last I was told there are well over 100 of us
if we approached other OS groups for this purpose, we could bring that
number much higher.  In that way, we WOULD be a movement...  We would
have ideas from many different backgrounds, and we would have many projects
to draw from, in many different stages of development. Last time I checked
we're all OpenSource/FreeSource right?

Please keep in mind this is only a suggestion.  Please treat it as such, we
are not going to change overnight (unless everyone agrees that this is a good
idea).

--
-----------------------------
Pat Wendorf
UniOS Group
http://unios.dhs.org
beholder@ican.net
ICQ: 1503733
-----------------------------