On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Ken Williams wrote: > On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 05:50 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > > Currently we have modules in the DateTime namespace and more then a > > dozen 2nd tier namespaces. Is it appropriate for us [the DateTime > > 'Asylum'] to be presuming some sort of control over the DateTime > > namespace? Further, is it possible to seek control over a top level > > namespace? I believe there is some president for this, for example > > DBI, but the issue does seem somewhat vague. At least nothing of this > > nature seems to be officially ordained. > > No, there's nothing official. But yes, it's entirely appropriate to > take over the DateTime namespace, especially since it didn't seem to > exist before y'all created it. All namespaces should be so lucky. > Also, it's being actively managed in a way that allows it to grow. If > people don't like the policies, they can always develop in Date:: or > Time:: or any of the pre-existing namespaces. > > Also, do you mean to be writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The former is for rulings, the latter is for > advice and discussion. So I guess the above is just my opinion, but > I'm also right. ;-)
Yeah, I'd like to get a ruling on this. Joshua, do you mind writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
