On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
> who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting up
> the RFC process.

I'm trying to say this carefully, but the first few days of the process were
conducted in an atmosphere of excitement and determination, which ended up
giving the impression that it was rather fixed and you had to either agree
with it or feel uncomfortable. We are having separate mailing lists! We are
having an RFC process! There didn't seem to be very much in the way of
flexibility there.

And, come on, Nat, 300 RFCs later, you can't really say we haven't had the
chance to re-evaluate and re-adjust. Have we done so?

> And that's what frustrates me.  In reality, it's highly premature for
> people to be saying we're doomed, but the article doesn't give that
> impression at all.
No, it says that the way we organised the RFC process is suboptimal. It's
a bit of a leap from there to "we're doomed".

The sky already fell.  Now what?  -- Steven Wright

Reply via email to