[opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520

[Rob Nelson]

I agree;  In fact, people have been trying to communicate with Lindens
in some meaningful way (as is required in Open Source projects) since
the beginning of the open-sourcing of the viewer, but it seems that
Linden Lab seems more inclined to dictate what changes WILL be done
rather than gathering a consensus with OSS developers. See: hidden
SVN/HG servers, unreleased SL 2.0 beta source code, overall poor bug
turnover and triage in PJIRA (SVC-1509, anyone?), office hours vanishing
into thin air...  

Quite frankly, the idea of forking the entirety of SL (OpenSim and
viewers), as suggested by Morgaine, is looking quite attractive.  At
least then the community can actually contribute without being shot
down, blocked by a wall of red tape, or chased off by rabid TPV
policies.  We can then also contribute to the server-side of things
rather than waiting for the server goons to get around to adding or
fixing features.

Fred Rookstown

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:26 -0500, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) <maggie at matrisync.com>
> Date: Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about
> llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
> To: Soft Linden <soft at lindenlab.com>
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden <soft at lindenlab.com> wrote:
> 
> > A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed
> > completely in the open, and in a way that's aligned with everybody's
> > interests. But that takes an active commitment on all sides...
> 
> True enough. But I think there's widespread perception that the Second
> Life Viewer is already  not a "totally healthy open-source project",
> and I don't think that perception can't be laid at the door of
> "obstructionism".