> It's a *review* committee -- that's what the "R" in ARC stands for. > We review the things that others propose.
Okay, but I'm still at a loss. If you find the description "committee decision" to be pejorative and offensive, please suggest an alternative. > Suggesting that PSARC would fly off the rails and invent a ban on Perl > on behalf of all Open Solaris projects seems misguided to me, and it > certainly sows unwanted seeds of doubt about how the process works. I don't believe that was what I suggested. It seemed to me that you had suggested that a precedent be set for which languages it would be acceptable for developers to use. If that's not what was suggested then this is a misunderstanding. > Instead, I'm suggesting that I think Darren has it wrong. The use of > Perl (and the cost to the overall system it causes, and the > restrictions it imposes on other projects [such as minimization]) is > architectural in nature. Darren was suggesting that it was not > architectural because Perl is already in the minimum required > metacluster. My point is that this doesn't remove the question -- it > certainly changes the nature of it for other projects (without a > change in policy, and assuming project boundaries are maintained, > there's no real restriction on who may use it) -- but it doesn't make > the issue less architectural. Thanks for the clarification. This explanation seems clearer than previous descriptions. > > This kind of attack is inappropriate. I participate in this process and > > am not disparaging anybody's work. You don't have to agree with my > > opinion, but at least be respectful. > > That's exactly what I was asking. My comments were not intended to be taken as a personal attack. I apologize if they came across otherwise. -j _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
