On 2016-01-06, 18:53 GMT, Troy A. Griffitts wrote: > This is a commercial module to be sold by Lockman. That is > a different scenario from other modules. For this module, > I have reasonably asked:
I didn’t like Karl’s tone last time the flamewar went around, but I have to admit he is right. Whatever you say is suspicious because of one argument: “Twelve years”. > 1) That we have a scripted, reproducible way to transform > their data from their pristine source to a module. Yes, what’s the problem? Whom you asked for help (e.g., I have developed completely automatic conversion of CzeCSP from one XML to OSIS, and it didn’t take me twelve years to do it)? Twelve years. > 2) That we support their entire dataset which they have given > us for this module (base text + footnotes / crossrefs > + lexica) Yes, I have CzeCSP with footnotes, crossrefs, and notes. Twelve years. > 3) That the result works generally in all major SWORD/JSword > frontends. What are the problems? Where are the bugs? Where is the progress on development of the module recorded? I would be willing to buy the module, if that was required to work on it. Twelve years. > It is not as simple as-- just release it and fix it later. > This is to be sold by Lockman. What do you mean? I work for Red Hat. We sell software in tune of some, let's say, two billions of USD. Of course, we don’t expect it to absolutely perfect and bug-free. If there are bugs in the module, we can certainly provide a fix. Where is the alpha version, how do you plan to make QA working? Twelve years. > Historically, we have had at least 4 people own this effort > over the years. It is not simply that one person has sat on > this and hasn't finished it for 12 years. Yes, so where are products of work of all these people? What did they do? I mean, I honestly believe that some work was done, but without some presentation of the results, how can we know what's done? Here “Twelve years” makes it even more difficult to be persuaded. > I think we are close. In my mind, the current owner (Greg) > simply needs to have a list of outstanding items which keep us > from satisfying 1-3 and push each of them down the road until > they are done. And where is that list? That is my question. > I don't know what those items are. I am just concerned that > we meet 1-3 before we give the data to Lockman to sell and > I feel these 3 items are reasonable requests. I don't think Lockman expects the work to be ever done at this point, but that's another thing. If they do, they have my admiration (or something else). However, if you (or Lockman) expect that you will hand over finished absolutely prefect module and Lockman will never ever see you (or anybody from the Sword project) again, than I think you are sorely mistaken. Unless of course they are prepared to maintain the module themselves. After all, even NASB itself is (according to Wikipedia) in its tenth edition. Blessings, Matěj -- https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mc...@ceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC My point was simply that such tax proposals [for Pigovian taxes compensating for the transaction costs] are the stuff that dreams are made of. In my youth it was said, that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics. -- Ronald Coase Notes on the Problem of Social Cost _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
