[Arm-netbook] EOMA - Open Specification?

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

On 2014-05-26 at 14:49:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > 2. Others may get blocked purly on ego
> 
>  that would be genuinely stupid.  as you probably know i am pretty
> pathological about decision-making when it comes to achieving specific
> goals.  things like "ego" don't come into it.  i assess "is this going
> to further the goal, yes or no" and that really is the end of it:
> there *is* no "this person is a dick therefore they are out".  they
> can be as much of a dick as they like, as long as they get results
> that don't jeapordise the goal.
> 
>   at some point i want a foundation, and a charter that i am happy
> will be able to continue without my input - i will have other things
> to do.  we are however looking at like 3-5 years into the future.

In other messages you mentioned that it wasn't you but your associate 
who blacklisted Aaron Seigo from using the EOMA name *and* from 
building an EOMA compatible products, the same associate who seems 
also to be not really interesting in contributing with the FLOSS 
community anymore.

If, as it seems from those messages, it is your associate who has 
control over the EOMA specs, how can we be sure that the openness 
you want for it will be maintained?

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''