I am not concerned with Leo's "veto" at the moment. While I have not discussed this with him I believe my proposal on framework documentation will go a long way to resolving his concerns.
I expressed two concerns.
One was about a change in specification which I disagree with. A change which badly impacts a few projects I'm responsible for, a change which I protested against before, and a change which was IMHO not sufficiently discussed before coming into effect. This is the change I vetoed. I did not issue it publicly because, like you, I feared for "starting any flame-wars". And if there's to be a flame-war, IMHO it is best kept private.
Turning to your proposal, I continue to believe it's a very bad idea to make this change as part of avalon-framework 4.x; it would probably be much better to make it part of the "Unified Avalon 5 Platform Lifecycle Specification". But yes, putting in place distinct documentation for framework 4.1.x and 4.2.x in some rather hidden part of the avalon website would change my vote to something like -.98. IOW I wouldn't like it one bit but could probably be pursuaded to shut up about it.
The other concern (which I titled "Cooperation") is not addressed at all by putting in place deleted documentation after I complain loudly a few times. And this concern is IMHO a lot more important; it's the "bigger issue". This I did not raise publicly because it is not a technical issue at all. There's no veto here either, just some sentiments and a question which I'll repeat: What are we to expect?
Anyways, I /really/ need to run now. I'll be offline for the weekend.
take care,
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
