[Arm-netbook] EOMA - Open Specification?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Elena ``of Valhalla''
<elena.valhalla at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,

 no - i do.  he doesn't have the technical expertise.

> how can we be sure that the openness
> you want for it will be maintained?

 good point. let me think... i know: if he doesn't listen then i will
resign.  that would terminate the project as he needs my technical
expertise.

l.