Hi, Dave Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> writes: > The list is a list of people who were active in the project several > years ago, but who have gone on to other things. It would be nice to > get some of them back working on the GIMP, if they have the time. IMO everyone should be free to leave the project at any time. These people decided that they don't want to actively contribute any longer or they had other reasons that keep them from contributing. I don't think it makes sense to try to bring them back in this way. Instead we should focus on new developers. People who aren't busy with other things and who will bring in some new ideas. So we need to make the code more attractive to hack on. We need to document it better, we need to explain and discuss changes on this list. If we succeed to attract some new developers this way, perhaps we can also get some of the old coders back to work on The GIMP. However I don't think the latter should be of any priority. > this is a little effort on our part (on my part) to communicate > better with some people who are likely to be interested in what's > happening with the gimp. The list is pretty incomplete, as Daniel > Egger says, that's why I sent it here to get more suggestions. And > as you say, some of these people are still on the developers list. IMO you should better spend that effort on communicating this to everyone out there. Look at it, would you start coding on a project that you left years ago just because someone sends you a mail? This plan looks a lot like wasted effort to me. > Basically, the two groups where we can hope to get volunteers are > people who have already helped with the gimp, and people who have > never done so. The problem with the latter group is that they don't > have the accumulated knowledge of experience. It's not that many of the people on your list have experience with the current GIMP code. Not much is left from the old days. A lot of things changed and I would find it rather dangerous to get the same people back on the code that wrote it originally. They might assume that the code still works the way it used to work five years ago. Sven
