On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400 > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate > > anything in particular. > > Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected > within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in, > rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the > developer's part.
rand(3) doesn't take an argument, but if you meant a random integer from 0 through 19, then no applicant has come close to that upper limit of 20 years. > > You need some familiarity with the process, or else the individual > > situations of the applicants, in order to claim that their status is > > unjust. > > No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears > broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any > conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. > That has nothing to do with just or unjust. If the applicants are not being treated unjustly, then I do not think that the process is broken. -- - mdz
