On 4 September 2015 at 01:38, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org> wrote:
Il 04/09/2015 01:24, Brandon Harris ha scritto:
>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Ricordisamoa<ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org>
>> wrote:
>> I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure.
> I don't think that's what was said
at all. You may wish to
> re-read all of this.
Putting "active development" on hold when
the software is little used in
production and even some features a MVP should have had are missing, really
sounds like a failure to me, although Danny has been very good at not making
it sound like it.
"To better address the needs of our core contributors", "we shift the
team's
focus to these other priorities", "communities that are excited about Flow
discussions will be able to use it"
It read to me and many others like a fairly standard set of euphemisms
for when a project is killed but nobody wants to say "killed". Perhaps
we're all reading it wrong.
So, non-euphemistically: could someone please detail what, precisely,
is and is not the level of resource commitment to Flow? (And how it
compares to e.g. the level of resource commitment to LQT.)
- d.