Jon Leech wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 04:35:33PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If the frustration is due to impatience because the solution is so
> > slow in coming, then getting more than 12 or 13 votes split down the
> > middle would help drive a consensus.
>
> The resolution of this seems much more important to ISVs than to
> IHVs, so I'm disappointed that so few ISVs have spoken on it; is it just
> that they don't care one way or the other, or have we opinionated IHV
> loudmouths just intimidated people into silence?
> Jon Leech
> SGI
I can only speak for myself but the signal to noise ratio on this issue is
just way out of hand. I have to much work to do to stay up with seven or
eight messages per hour on the same subject. Everyone has opinion, many
overlap, and many postings to this group really do not add much to the
discussion. It is like compiler warning messages. If you get a few you pay
attention and fix them. If you get a hundreds, you just throw up your hands.
When it came time to vote, I felt that since I had not kept up with the
discussion I really had no right to vote. I guess my bottom line here is the
result of any of the three outcomes are not that egregious that I couldn't
live them. I would love to see this issue put to bed so that we can move on
other issues. Frankly, it is embarrassing that we have spent this much time
without resolution. Perhaps we should work a little on process so that this
will not happen again.
--
Richard Pimentel
Manager of Graphics and Integration
Industrial Design Products
PTC
540 Arapeen Drive, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
(801) 588-4668
