World: r3wp

or in a catatonic state

IIRC last thing we heard from Carl was callback related stuff ...

No, he said he had a build that worked. Since the new host kit represents 
a new API, I would guess that he has to make a few other platforms 
to sort out the platform-dependencies in the API.

for BrianH: http://www.rebol.com/r3/notes/callbacks.html

Some of you may be wondering where the Host Kit is for A99?

The good news: the lib and host have been built and run on Win32.

Let him who is without sin, throw the first stone

where are the stones ??

The last Twitter message states: "We need to update libs and funcs 
for REBOL 3. Should we host a R3 "summer of code?""

rolling stones :-)

Pekr, saw that one. It's missing discussion of tasking issues.

>> switch true [true [1]]
== none

Why.

Ehm, because it word! and not logic!, ignore it.

>> switch true [#[true] [1]]
== 1

Carl show back... but not with some R3 movement only with R3 environment 
stuff: web-hosting, project page, ... I don't know why...

but it doesn't move us forward. As long as we don't get R3 out-of-the-door 
I don't need a R3 project page.

Looks like he needs a project manager

Another activity, which actually helps nothing ....

There is one thing, I hardly understand.

It was said, that he wrote R2 in a very short time, as he was not 
satisfied with R1.

Now he has the the experience with two shots, he has got a community 
with people ready to help and knowing his intentions and experience 
too.

What happens?
It fizzles out ....

One has to take the help, give some control away, live with the fact 
that not 100% will be as if you would do it yourself. But that's 
how woring in a team / with others is.

The benefit? It scales better than on person.

(wow several typos in just three lines...)

http://www.rebol.com/projects.html

Looks good so far. One complaint: In the binary conversions section, 
R2's struct! type is mentioned, then it says "Something similar is 
needed in R3". Please, no, at least not for conversions.

Each of those pages needs to point to a page on rebol.net's wiki 
so we can edit them

of those points ...

Yes

Each of those pages should have something like:

Lead: ..
Members:
Completion Status: ...
Discussions: altme web link
Repository: ..

or similar

which means removing the lead and status fields from the projects 
page

No, duplicating that info on the projects page is fine. If someone 
is willing to do the work, they deserve to be recognized.

Think of the projects page as a summary.

Eh?  I'm talking about redundancy ...

unless the projects page is dynamically generated it will get out 
of sync rapidly

Right. Redundancy is fine on a summary page.

Disagree ..it must means more misinformation we don't need

The lead and status won't change that often.

That's because everything goes so slowly ...

I don't have that expectation in the future

The purpose of a summary page is to allow people to get a quick overview 
without having to go to the detail pages if they don't need to.

The lead and status summary are exactly the kind of details you want 
there.

So, use parse and extract that detail and put it on the summary page!

Can you imagine Carl is going to maintain the summary page??

Fine, but I don't expect the details page to have a summary of the 
status, I expect it to have a detailed status. If you are expecting 
projects to have a lot of activity, is it so implausible to imagine 
the projects page being maintained?

Yes, because they're different sites and different people.  We know 
Carl is the only one with access to rebol.com pages and history tells 
us he can't maintain them.

We know that Carl being the only one with access to rebol.com pages 
is considered by Carl to be a bug in the permissions system of the 
rebol.com site, and that he is working on it.

People with sufficient rank in DevBase are supposed to be able to 
edit some pages.

Of course if that is abused, they lose the rank.

Is anything being done to support proxies?

nothing is done to support anything, imo :-)

what I like though about the project is the specific one - Codecs 
being reworked from functional to port model, to better support streaming 
:-)

Does proxy support require work at the C level?