On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:37:23PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:48:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > It's been proven plenty of times that whenever we have task depend on a > > > single person doing it, the lack of redundancy comes back and bites us in > > > the ass whenever there's the slightest bit of a problem. > > Why do you think that contributes _anything_ to the discussion? It's not > > remotely insightful, rather it's trivially obvious. > This NIH attitude is really laughable.
NIH usually stands for "Not Invented Here", meaning someone presuming other people are wrong, and that only ones own ideas are right. You'll note, though, that what I said was that your claim was *trivially obvious*, which is quite a distance from wrong. > I see how you might have a vested > interest in trying to defend the acts of the DPL, given that there've been > cases where lack of redundancy among the release managers caused some > difficulties. You might like to try reading what I write, rather than assuming that I'm disagreeing out of some sort of paranoid fear for my job. You might also like to note the difference between observing a lack of redundancy, and doing something about it. > I didn't, however, expect that you'll actually try to sell > this kind of bullshit as an actual argument that we need to trust the DPL > who is supposedly asserting that things simply had to be done the wrong way. No, I'm asserting that people who don't understand what's going on well enough to contribute anything other than trite cliches shouldn't contribute anything. If you can contribute something more valuable than trite cliches, please do; but so far, in this thread, you simply haven't. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
pgpWJ1sQK5TsM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
