I think I would have put it slightly different: "... they just want to get back to making chips and coding..."
On Mar 13 2013 11:11 AM, Eric Keller wrote: > the history probably would be good, but what's important is coming up > with > guidance for contributions in the future. I think most people just > want to > help and don't really care about any of these issues. > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Kent Reed <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hey, Matt. Don't get me wrong. I think LCNC deserves a better >> documented >> history. I just don't want to see discussion about moving forward >> bog down >> in "it's the way it is now because..." loops. It's important to know >> one's >> history but it's also important not to let it paralyze the process. >> I got a >> belly full of that in standards committees. >> >> Please excuse the top post. I'm still getting the hang of this Nexus >> 7 and >> its gmail interface. >> >> On Mar 13, 2013 10:31 AM, "Matt Shaver" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:56:47 -0400 >> > "Kent A. Reed" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I know the history of the development of LCNC. I don't want to >> rehash >> > > why things are the way they are now. I just want to see them get >> > > better as we move forward. >> > >> > I was just fixing to spend a lot of time trying to document "why >> things >> > are the way they are now". If you think this is a waste of time, >> let me >> > know why. I really respect your opinions! >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
