BlackBox Framework Center

Ivan Denisov wrote:Robert, would you prefer to be counted as been from GB or from Scotland?

I've changed it to "the UK". The UK is a more important political entity than Scotland, so I think is more suitable here. (GB is a geographical term, and describes an area that includes England, Scotland and Wales; UK is the political union (state) comprising the countries England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.)

(I don't feel strongly about this - I don't get insulted when people get it wrong.)

Josef Templ wrote:The problem with a list is that if nobody is in the list, nobody gets the mail.
And if multiple members are in the list, nobody may feel responsible for answering it
or more than one... Complicated.

A mail addressed to the center should always go to a well-defined recipient,
for example the chair but can also be some other post officer.
No need for a mailing list here, I believe, and it seems to cause technical problems.

- Josef

I completely disagree with that.
Josef, didn't you use the Omic mailing list and receive message from anyone who posted to it?
I found that very convenient and not complicated at all.
If one does not wish to receive such messages one simply removes them self from the list.

EDIS is my ISP and handles my personal email. It would be simple to set up an EDIS email
account for BlackBoxFramework.org.
Why don't we do that?
Doug

This introduces too many terms without explaining them and, I believe, it is technically not 100% sound.
A module is the unit of compilation and loading. A command is the unit of execution.

Actually that is not correct. Any exported procedure can be called which causes execution within a module. Not only that but loading of a module causes execution of the body of the module.

In Oberon the unit of execution is a procedure

So, I will change my stance and say "a module is a unit of compilation and a procedure of that module is a unit of execution".
That does not cover the case of module body execution, however.
-Doug

DGDanforth wrote:

Josef Templ wrote:The problem with a list is that if nobody is in the list, nobody gets the mail.
And if multiple members are in the list, nobody may feel responsible for answering it
or more than one... Complicated.

A mail addressed to the center should always go to a well-defined recipient,
for example the chair but can also be some other post officer.
No need for a mailing list here, I believe, and it seems to cause technical problems.

I completely disagree with that.
Josef, didn't you use the Omic mailing list and receive message from anyone who posted to it?
I found that very convenient and not complicated at all.

Doug, there should be one or maximal two receivers. Can you imagine such situation that somebody ask a question and then ten people send various replies! It will be chaos.

cfbsoftware wrote:

since 2013, when BlackBox Component Builder was turned into an open source project

That statement is incorrect, or is at best, misleading and should be reworded. The following is a quote from the Oberon microsystems' email dated 31 Dec 2004 announcing BlackBox 1.5 beta:

The major new aspect of BlackBox 1.5 is the added source code for the entire system, governed by an open source license.

However Oberon microsystems was the main distributor of BlackBox until 2013. So here I agree that project turned into an open source only in 2013.

DGDanforth wrote: I completely disagree with that.
Josef, didn't you use the Omic mailing list and receive message from anyone who posted to it?
I found that very convenient and not complicated at all.
If one does not wish to receive such messages one simply removes them self from the list.

Doug

There is nothing wrong with a mailing list as such, but do we need a mailing list
as a contact address for a press release? This is the question.

If you send an e-mail to a contact address you do not expect this e-mail to be published
to a mailing list with unknown receivers. This does not seem to me to be the appropriate tool for our purpose.
And don't forget: Ivan mentioned that it causes technical problems.

- Josef

Ivan Denisov wrote:

cfbsoftware wrote:

since 2013, when BlackBox Component Builder was turned into an open source project

That statement is incorrect, or is at best, misleading and should be reworded. The following is a quote from the Oberon microsystems' email dated 31 Dec 2004 announcing BlackBox 1.5 beta:

The major new aspect of BlackBox 1.5 is the added source code for the entire system, governed by an open source license.

However Oberon microsystems was the main distributor of BlackBox until 2013. So here I agree that project turned into an open source only in 2013.

I was referring to this part of the BB 1.6 announcement:
"Oberon microsystems does not plan to work on BlackBox beyond version 1.6. All future corrections, improvements and the release management will have to be driven by the community."

What would be the proper wording that covers all facts?
Perhaps: ... was turned into a community project
or
... was turned into an open source community project
or
... ???
(or leave it as it is.)

- Josef

"when BlackBox Component Builder development was taken over as a non-commercial community project" - Maybe?

The less the original wording is changed the closer to the truth it is likely to be. e.g. something like (suitably adjusted to fit in the original context):

... when the responsibility for corrections, improvements and release management of a community version was assumed by the BlackBox Framework Center...

Ivan Denisov wrote:
Doug, there should be one or maximal two receivers. Can you imagine such situation that somebody ask a question and then ten people send various replies! It will be chaos.

That's how it was done with the Omic mailing list and there was not chaos but a running discussion on a topic posted.