* James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> [2009-06-09 19:41]: > I'm trying to get at the nut of this concern. I feel like I haven't > quite found it yet.
Your terms of admission are more generous than mine, and suggest that coordination be deferred. My terms are stingier, and should imply my preference to see more information and successful pursuit up front. We each believe our terms lead to a healthy engineering community. I assume you might find my community to be overcontrolled, reputation-driven, and arbitrary; I view yours as likely to lead to waste and confusion. We'll reach neither extreme. > > There are numerous ways to avoid that duplication of effort. I have > > proposed some; careful project leadership should also manage to do so. > > I don't think that duplication of effort is necessarily something that > should factor in here. A simple notice to the project team is more > than sufficient and (provided that they don't withdraw on their own) > should have nothing whatsoever to do with endorsement. We disagree. That's fine--move to the consensus mechanism. For the purposes of the specific project proposal in front of us, I vote -0.5. (That's non-blocking, but reflects my desire to see this team attempt to integrate their previous work with the ongoing projects here.) - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
