On Wed, 02 May 2012 19:00:48 +0200, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2012 21:35:45 -0700, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> What happens if it doesn't pass?
I guess we'll reevaluate then.
How would this be different than what we've been doing for the past year?
As far as I can tell, the current situation is that we've stopped work on
XBL2 -- at least, nobody has worked on it for ages, and nobody is
planning
on working on it any time soon. But if we actually _decide_ to stop
working on it, then we'll have to _start_ working on it again, in order
to
publish a note saying we're not working on it, whereas if we decide _not_
to stop working on it, we'll continue doing nothing, having stopped
working on it.
This is like the epitome of committee-driven nonsense.
No. It is slightly more work than reading this thread.
If we get into a meta-argument about the value of time, we will change
that equation to make publishing the note look more worthwhile.
The opportunity cost incurred by me editing the status section is minimal,
and we thereby make it clearer that the final stage of this work is
"parked owing to lack of ongoing interest".
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
