> this is rehashing old ground and the horse is dead. there > was a failure of communication; members/pmcs failed to > trickle the word down in all directions. the creation of > the community@ list was partially in response to that, so > it won't happen again. so can we *please* stop hearing about > how people were left out of the loop? yes, everyone knows > that; yes, everyone is sorry that it happened; no, it wasn't > deliberate nor malicious; and yes, steps have been taken to > hopefully lower the probability of it happening again. > complaining about it now, particularly since corrective > action has been taken, is imnsho a waste of time. let's get > on with it.
+1 > then imho they're just feeling sorry for themselves and i > have no patience with it. it has been stated too many times > to count that a) the a-c commons project is being *defined*, > and b) the opinions of j-c people are sought to help in that > definition. so any 'disadvantage' is nothing of the kind. Given that commons has not been fully defined, j-c people should join up and help to define it in the best way possible. This is the best opporutnity that I have seen in a long time. The only thing I actually worry about is getting too many j-c'ers over here, and not having an equivalent viewpoint from the non-java side. If the c/perl/python/yal side is not represented here, we may have the same amount of 'brokeness' that exists in j-c today in some people's minds. Scott
