In message <[email protected]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>So now we're into legal analogies? No. But if you do not make a credible case that something is being overlooked, nobody is going to waste time on your proposed process to look for things that are being overlooked. If you could come up with just a single credible poster-boy example you would have a chance, but so far I have seen nothing even remotely like it from you. Proposing red tape commisions in the absence of evidence of their need, is a widely recognized stalling tactic. Poul-Henning >>> The problem is rather expressed in a large number of requirements >>> that >>> derive from use cases cutting across the panoply of human industries >>> and activities. Is there a consensus that we have completed the task >>> of gathering these requirements? >> >> Before any such consensus can be reached, you have to show probable >> cause. >> >> You havn't. > >_______________________________________________ >LEAPSECS mailing list >[email protected] >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs > -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
