Brock Rozen wrote:
> Agreed. First and foremost, since there seems to be many who want to work
> or help with mj 2.0, there MUST be organization. Chan is, obviously, in
> charge. He has been up to this point, and unless he wants to give it to
> someone else, I see no reason that should be changed.
Yes, I agree. Without preempting the boss, let's discuss the outline for
the structure of mj2.0. You've got lots of great ideas there :) Let's
put them into action!
> I'm not looking for majordomo to be a "solve-all". There are currently
> some very good guestbooks, WWW discussion boards, and Usenet clients out
> there. Tying those into majordomo to allow INTER-connectivity is fine, but
> replacing them is just too much.
Yes true, but, I like mj2.0 to have all the proper hooks for folks to
plug in their stuff, if it so happens that they want to replace existing
tools that do other things. And, we should take good advantage of Perl5 --
do you consider using OOP? (I do not know OOP yet at present, but this
would be an incentive to learn!)
> As for mj 1.95, I think it should have a set and defined goal. I don't
> want it to take 6 months, because that just delays 2.0. Bugs should be
> fixed, uncomfortable situations need to be corrected and anything that we
> deem as necessary should be added. Other than bare-minimums and we're
> working too hard when energy could be put to 2.0.
So I guess you would put it as a bugfix release. All the "nice stuff"
should go into mj2.0. If people *really* want a feature, they should
put it in themselves, and document it well so that it can serve as a
baseline for 2.0 development.
miguel a.l. paraz <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.iphil.net/~map/ PGP: 0x43F0D011
iphil communications: isp/intranet design and implementation, makati city, ph