Re: [mowbot] A Suggestion.

robin nospam at
Tue, 8 Oct 1996 03:11:28 +0100

Don Audry wrote:
> There seems to be too much concern with how designs are made and voted etc.
As one of the prime instigators of the concern with how designs are
made, I feel I should justify my concerns. The list has not yet been
running three weeks and already I see people going back over ground that
has been debated in considerable detail. That is counter-productive,
unless a new idea occurs, but unless people know where the discussion
has been and where it's going, this is going to recur and get even
more frustrating. People who have to make things happen know this and
have evolved strategies like the agenda and minutes to cope. They don't
have to be oppressive---I'd never tell someone off for not sticking to
an agenda---but having a strategy worked out and documented gives focus
and direction.

> From: Robert Bergstrom <robert nospam at>
> There is too much diversity for a consenus, and I don't really see
> the need for it.
Consensus is the most important thing if you want to keep a group
together. I try hard not to disagree with any point made, but instead
look for common ground and concentrate on that. You might be suprised
how easily two apparently opposed views can discover something they have
in common. Of course, it is possible that we have nothing in common,
in which case we can always split two different ways, but that would be
bad since it diminishes both sides.

Monta Elkins wrote:
> While we each are certainly free to design and build
> our own systems; I was hoping there would be some commonality
> such that we could share resources and talents.
I strongly agree. I don't *want* to design and build my own system.
I've had two years since I first had the idea in which to do that.
I want the group to help me, and I want to help the group. Although the
group's design may well have features I don't think I need, I believe
that the resulting design will be better and more interesting than one
I could come up with myself. A modular design is good because it allows
pieces to be specified, designed, implemented and tested independently,
and alternatives tried out; it also gives you freedom to mix and match
components, but unless you want to design a completely disjoint set
of modules, you have to start from common ground. So let's have less
divisive talk and more constructive comments!


Copyright (C) 1996 R.M.O'Leary <robin nospam at>  All rights reserved.
For licence to copy, see