Governance revisited

[Robert Lunnon]

On Sunday 24 September 2006 01:06, Rolf Kalbermatter wrote:
> Jim White wrote:
> > CodeWeavers Wine version is full of patches that Alexandre won't accept
> > for WineHQ. Obvious proof that the Alexandre's policy isn't the only
> > way to make a Wine that people value. In fact it proves that the
> > WineHQ's patch process is not good enough to make Wine that people
> > will pay for, while CodeWeavers' is.
>
> And that is wrong? Wine being Open Source that everybody can download I'm
> not sure how you would get many people to pay for it. Packaging alone won't
> be a good business model because there are many Linux distributors who will
> and do that too for no additional cost.
>
> > Many more leave than stay.  And your rudeness just helps that to happen.
> > In case you didn't notice, your entire post was signal free.  If Mike
> > is trolling, you've been hooked.
>
> I agree with you that Vitaly's post wat unnecessarily rude and harsh,
> especially considering that Bob did submit a bunch of patches no matter
> if they were accepted into Wine or not.
>
> Rolf Kalbermatter

Actually, most patches *are* accepted - but I keep labouring, this isn't the 
point, I am promoting the concept that Wine should be for the users and that 
the patch acceptance policy and behaviour management should support a user 
(Customer) focus and need to be transparent. 


Bob