I actually don't mind digging in and spending the time showing what I
mean with code (although the barrier here is much higher since I don't
know erlang at all...)
But I am a little worried that if the "project lead" and "gatekeepers"
are even *thought* by active members of the community to be dead-set
against it that I would be wasting time.
I think it's an important issue (clearly or I wouldn't be spending so
much vacation time discussing it), but it's not a make-or-break issue
for me.
geir
On Jan 2, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
Not really, my point stands. Show the code, then we vote. :)
On the other hand, consensus building can't harm either.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 07:14:26AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Maybe the tradition should be of an Apache project? :)
From my limited interaction w/ the Linux kernel community, it's a
very
different beastie...
geir
On Jan 1, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:15:21AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
No. The primary reason is "why change - the current mechanism has
worked for a
year". Damien (project lead) doesn't regard change as necessary,
and
a
significant change to support top-level reflexivity (which is your
primary
thrust) doesn't have support from the other gatekeepers. There is
some support
for name identity, although I suspect not enough to prompt a
change.
I appreciate you're frustrated with the current situation Antony,
but I
think
it's unfair for you to be claiming any kind of consensus without a
vote. I would
be interested in seeing a patch, explanation, and vote. I've already
expressed
my agreement with many of the points you've raised, and I'm not the
only one.
It's pretty pointless for us to keep sending emails over proposed
changes to the
code without actually seeing the changes. So, in the tradition of
the
Linux
kernel, show the code and let's have a vote!
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
