On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:57, Leo Simons wrote:
could you either retract your vetoes issued as part of this thread or reply to my last e-mail concerning those vetoes (or do both, of course)?
Whats to reply.
The point is that you've issued some vetoes which I and others believe to be applying to something not subject to a veto. We need to agree on this point: letting vetoes lying around is not good. So a good reply would be to conceed that the vetoes are inappropriate, or provide arguments that will convince us that they are.
--
The point is also that other points you've made in this thread about the technical validity of the package should be addressed. If a package has no use or an unacceptable implementation, we shouldn't release it, hence claims like this need to be addressed when made, if the intent is indeed to release the package.
I need you to make me see where the problems lie in that respect, so a good reply in that respect would probably be some code examples. If it's not possible for you to explain these things to me (assuming here I am technically competent enough to understand the issues), we probably need to use some kind of poll or voting mechanism to get the sum of the parts of the developer community to settle this. But again, having the stamp of "this is a bad idea" on a package we're readying for release is something we should not do.
--
On a personal note, I am also pretty annoyed with your whining about us doing a "half-assed job" in various respects. I think the picture you paint is wrong, and you should either stop painting it and "get over it" or back things up.
Also, you are a smart guy who knows quite well how the voting and discussion process flows here, and dragging out an explanation of something I know you understand perfectly well (as you taught me!) is just as annoying, so please stop that too.
But this is just a request at this point, even if it would make my life easier if you would, so please do give it some thought.
--
finally...
What possible advantage is there to pushing bits around? Would it not be more productive to focus on improving the quality of the code?
It would be _much_ more productive to just do stuff, and let others do stuff too, rather than veto things because they might not be very productive. Your vetoes are forcing a response, where we would probably could have fixed all issues with the package, done several bugfix releases, and implement an interceptor-based version of the package, in the time it has taken various people to craft those responses and investigate the issue.
So, turning this around: what possible advantage is there to being a royal pain in the butt trying to block these things? Would it not be much more productive to focus on improving the quality of the code?
greetz,
- LSD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
