On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:23:57AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:08:23PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >[Josselin Mouette] > > >> However that won't help the architecture make it to a Vancouver-like > > >> release. > > > > > >I suspect you have misunderstood the content and intention of the > > >proposal from the group meeting in Vancover. > > > > The intent was not at all that clear. > > Putting aside that issue for the moment, at the time the Vancouver > proposal was released, it was presented as a starting point for > discussion and not a fait accompli.
No, actually, at the time it was released it was presented as a fait accompli. After it received a wide expression of distaste and disgust, it was then claimed that it was supposed to be a starting point for discussion. If that was actually the original intent, then I have seen few documents quite so bad as that one, since it left no room for discussion. A starting point for discussion looks something like this: - Here is the problem: ... - Here are some proposals for solving it, along with discussion of their merits thus far determined: ... A fait accompli looks like this: - Here is what we're going to do: ... It's not hard to tell the difference. There has, to date, been no 'starting point for discussion' provided by the Vancouver cabal. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
