🚀 go-pugleaf

This is prompted by the FrameWorks "memo" asking us to suggest new names to fit
the MADA acronym.
 
               * Please keep "Macintosh" in the name.*
 
Yes, we're all going multiplatform these days, and MADA will doubtless be
involved in Bedrock stuff and therefore explicitly doing Windows, but I'm
concerned by a trend toward dilution of purpose.
 
When MADA was the *MacApp* Developers' Association, its function was clear: to
improve the lives of all MacApp developers. It served as an influential liason
between individual developers and Apple. It served as a central distribution
point for new MacApp classes, hints, tips, documentation, add-ons, etc.
 
I don't have the current charter in front of me, but my recollection is that
the main change was to remove the references to "MacApp" in favor of something
like "object-oriented development platforms." I think there was still some
emphasis on the Macintosh, though I could be wrong.
 
Due to the de-emphasis on MacApp, we have recently witnessed one major effect.
A couple of weeks ago I proposed that MADA acquire the rights to MacApp from
Apple, in order to put it on the minimal life-support that Apple is no longer
providing. One semi-official response was that it would be inappropriate for
MADA to do this, charging the cost to all MADA members, as MADA was not
specifically a MacApp-oriented organization. And the idea of having to get
people to specifically subscribe to a MADA MacApp apparently seems too
complicated and financially risky to some people.
 
So (unless there is a coup at MADACON)[*] MADA is not going to take over
MacApp. Will anyone else? I hardly think so. The net effect is that all of us
who have any of our eggs in the MacApp basket will suffer.
 
Now, without the charter change I wonder if this might have turned out
differently?
 
At the moment MADA seems to be (1) the publisher of FrameWorks, (2) the annual
organizer of a convention, and (3) a reseller of a handful of object-oriented
tools for the Macintosh. I find all of these things helpful. Because at the
moment the prime focus is:
 
    -- programming the Macintosh in MacApp, and
    -- previewing the new entrants in the Macintosh class-library-of-
       the-future contest
 
I no longer feel that there is an organization sticking up for me in
discussions with Apple, and I no longer feel that there is an organization
helping to guarantee the profitability of my choice to program in MacApp, but
at least I still see some benefits to me as a Macintosh object-oriented
programmer.
 
But if FrameWorks starts devoting a high percentage of its pages to OOP for
Windows, OOP for UNIX, OOP for Sun, OOP for NeXT, etc, and if MADA turns into
just another mail-order reseller of developer tools, then what's the point?
 
 
-- Dave Goldman
   Research Software Design
 
 
P.S. I'm not subscribed to MacApp.Tech$, so please send a copy of your
responses directly to me, or I won't see them until next Saturday.
 
 
[*] Is there some formal way to bring up a proposal for a vote by all MADA
members? Wouldn't that be the right way to test the "appropriateness" of MADA
taking over MacApp? If any of the Board of Directors can tell me the rules, I
will try to frame a very specific proposal for a referendum (suggestions
welcome).