[Arm-netbook] EOMA - Open Specification?

[peter green]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>  if he had told us within the first month "i'm sorry but this is much
> lower than i expected" we would have been able to go "ok, we have
> time, let's see what we can do".
>
>  but he kept the discussion going *WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION HOW
> MANY ORDERS DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE*.
>
>  every time we asked him "how many orders do you have" he answered
> with an answer that did not answer the question.
>
>  he dodged this question time and time again, finally answering when
> it was far too late.
>
>  now, if there are any other people who wish to do the exact same
> thing then i have absolutely no interest in dealing with them.
>
>  can you understand and appreciate that?
>   
Yes I can understand and appreciate why you are so frustrated, a 
collaborator being evasive screwed you at just the time you thought you 
might finally get your project off the ground.
>  this has absolutely nothing to do with EOMA: it is a simple business
> relationship.  we are interested to hear from people who can deliver
> on their promises, but who, if they cannot deliver, are forthright
> enough to be able to be honest and up-front about it.
>
>  is that not unreasonable, peter?
>   
It is absoloutely reasonable to blacklist a collaborator who has let you 
down and failed to communicate from future collaborations.

However if something is to be considered an open standard you have to 
accept and allow people who meet the technical requirements to implement 
it and sell there own implmentations it *even if* you don't like them 
and *even if* you have had a past collaboration with them go bad due to 
miscommunication.