Just to give a perspective from my side:
I agree that for many hobbyists and small companies there
may be no great advantage right now to SAOG over the current
situation. But I think Giorgio's proposals are right on for
the needs of larger companies and national/international
funding agencies. For example, there is a fair amount of
European funding available for work on projects like SA and
interactive media delivery, but it is a much more compelling
message to present to funding agencies if there is a quasi-
formal support group in place. Similarly, as large
companies get involved with the standard, it is easier for
them to internally justify development costs if it is clear
how their work can meet a market of synergistic and
compatible tools.
For example, when I evangelize the standard informally, it
would be very useful to have a full list of the organizations
that are sufficiently in support of SA that they are willing
to put their names in to join a group like SAOG, even if
there are no concrete benefits.
Finally, I think Giorgio's point regarding sole sponsorship
of the standard is a very good one. Media Lab energy in
direct support of the standard is waning as more people get
involved. Since we are a research organization and not much
interested in development, now that the development of tools
is the most important thing, we have relatively less to
contribute to the progress of the standard. And on the most
personal level, it is hard to say whether I will personally
have time to continue SA evangelism and development after
I graduate next spring. So setting up a structure that
puts this role in the hands of a larger community, rather
than just one person, is very appropriate as well.
I hope no one feels that the SAOG proposal is intended to
somehow privilege one implementation over another. In fact,
it is quite the opposite for me, that having a big open-source-
minded group is the best way to foster a healthy competition
and range of implementation projects with various
application targets. I think it is good that EPFL is willing
to donate the core of SAINT as a starting point and supervise
its development, and I hope that if their authors are
enthusiastic, the same will happen with sfront, sarun, and
other implementation projects that are being worked on.
None of this will replace the current SA web page or lists
of course, but perhaps it could inject more energy into
these. (For example, the main SA web page could use a
revision by a good site designer, as it is 18 months old
now, still has many broken links, and doesn't present the
material that is there in the most easy-to-find manner).
Best to all,
-- Eric
+-----------------+
| Eric Scheirer |A-7b5 D7b9|G-7 C7|Cb C-7b5 F7#9|Bb |B-7 E7|
|eds@media.mit.edu| < http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds >
| 617 253 1750 |A A/G# F#-7 F#-/E|Eb-7b5 D7b5|Db|C7b5 B7b5|Bb|
+-----------------+
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Dobson <rwd@cableinet.co.uk>
To: saol-dev <saol-dev@media.mit.edu>
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: SA Open Group proposal
>I have read the document, but I am still not really convinced it adds
>that much more that what is provided by the saol-dev lst and the current
>MIT site.
>
>Is this SOAG dependent on SAINT being released into the public domain,
>or is the release of SAINT dependent on the creation of SOAG?
>
>Richard Dobson
>
>Giorgio Zoia wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I had recently some contacts with Eric at the MIT, and indirectly with
>> others at the Media Lab, to investigate the possibility to join our
>> efforts for the development of a strong open-source SA community.
>> The proposal has been discussed on both sides and we reached an
>> agreement on the draft you find in attachment.
>>
>
>--
>Test your DAW with my Soundcard Attrition Page!
>http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/rwd (LU: 17th September 1999)
>CDP: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~masjpf/CDP/CDP.htm (LU: 4th November 1999)
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 12:15:49 EDT