World: r3wp

but you see, Carl has PITS embeded in his mind... the problem is 
that if you want power in a GUI at some point, some things need to 
be more extensive.  which can imply complexity.

Ok.  I'm all for that.  Sign me up for some grunt work...  :)

otherwise, we should just port current vid and add a few things in 
the dialect.

rebolek: i would prefer a simpler, more powerful approach than the 
one used in mui. however, probably mui is easier to understad to 
people (html tables even easier), so we'll need to stick to that.

Gabriele-  no, it is NOT happening. I believe you release R3 sooner 
than we might come familiar with all those needed systems. Has anyone 
discussed, e.g. if/how we allow localisation of docs? Etc.?

IIRC think carl really likes the simplicity and power of GLayout's 
proportional sizing engine.

its a prototype so yess the *code* has some ugly bits... but the 
layout concept is very agile, and makes tidy guis with little effort 
and understanding needed... its acutally much simpler than current 
vVID.

max, that's exactly what i did 12 years ago. no news to me. i wanted 
to try something new but that's not going to work so i won't.

And sorry Pekr;  I get my verbology wrong sometimes...  Wasn't meant 
as a diss.

I actually think, along with this heated debate, things are going 
to accelerate and

we are going to have more chance to get our hands dirty than any 
of us may be able
to handle.  It's going to great.

going to BE great.

Gabriele: I'm not trying to push MUI aprroach somehow, it's just 
that I'd like to see new VID to be localization-friendly

my point earlier was I'd like R3 to have time to actually try out 
different approaches, have them working code, let the community try 
out, maybe even create different propositions and take the time to 
use and have fun.

then the best parts of each idea usually really just pop up as *obvious*.

but having a june 30 date just allow a single track to move along 
so... I understand why/how you are approaching the whole thing... 
and yess I think you are courageous for asking openly here.

you just *knew* what was comming  ;-)

Maxim;  That can be good...but it can also be dangerous.  Everyone 
here is too smart
and has too many good ideas.  May become overwhelming.  :)

max, i hoped to prove carl wrong, but he seems to be right :P

hehe

Gabriele, team work depends on all aspects of the work to be teamed.

And I don't mean too smart in a bad way.  The computer IQ in this 
forum is off the scale

which is why Carl is right.

since Carl want's to retain control over the view .

just asking people about what they want obviously collides... everyone 
has different needs and POV.

I've always thought that everyone is *right* by default.

there is not team, there was no team. Team needs rules. To set rules 
you have to adhere. If you break the rules, you should be dismissed 
from team after some time. If ppl do adhere to rules, team has its 
sense ...

so its hard to merge the ideas, obviously.

Pekr, that is what I am saying.

but who choses the rules, who is right, who is wrong... bla bla bla.... 
you can end up with the same wars within anyways.

With Rebol, things are often aproached in non-organised, jumpy kind 
of way ... few questions, few months break, some doc, few months 
break, then release, which is even more different to what was agreed 
upon :-) just exagerrating, but you get the idea ...

why is why I thouhgt a more open, long term dev cycle would have 
been better.

Maxim - rules of the team ... ideas have no rules ;-)

people have ideas... let them prove them, if you will.

Gabriele should form rules, because he has most of the info:

Formal rules soon to be announced.  Membership voluntary of course. 
 Free flowing

'individual' code is also very valuable, but the Assembly vote is 
final in Robert's Rules
of Order.

the best things will stand out, IMHO, and ususally, there is a way 
to make them cooperative.

- guys, thing is as follows - Carl want's to release VID asap ... 
don't ask why, don't ask for the change ... ok, clear enough ... 
I will do prototype ... I need this or that from you ... I have the 
right to have final go. clear enough ...

liquid was implement in such a fashion... basically I took 3 engines 
and merged them.  each one was incompatible, but had great indivual 
traits which stood out...  so a bit of tought allowed me to merge 
about 120kb of code into 20k of code, and in all, it acutally does 
more than the 3 did own their own.

set the rules, we will follow. If you don't set them in stone, ppl 
will ask, if it can be done in other way, maybe a better way, that 
is natural, as brian said - we have smart ppl here.

liquid took a long to mature, but the main reason was that I'm doing 
it on my pass time.

And when I say that...it is only the "user community" assembly.  
Design is a seperate

issue.  The REBOL User group will only let us clear the noise down 
to a point form
executive summary...

so... where has this discussion got us?

nowhere? well, I will sum up ...

I vote to see code.   :)

I see a lot of things, but the question can be looked at differently... 
what did you really ask for?

1. publish something 2. let us comment it 3. implement comments 4. 
all of that before r3 release ;)

nowhere - that would prove Carl right :P

As I can see it, we follow related, but slightly different topics 
... first one is actual VID implementation and the way of project 
coordination, the second one is more general - setting communication 
channels with RT sooner than later, because if new ppl come, we will 
sink under once again ...

where you expecting a decision on something?  that was not really 
asked?

When I set up the revault group, I was not expecting an "answer" 
I was polling oppinion.

imagine thousands of new users asking questions towards rebol and 
its direction and desinger not being available ... as for me, I want 
to work closely with rebol evangelist person ...