Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, I followed the thread(s) while the proposal(s) were being > discussed. I whish I could convince myself of the contrary, but my > opinion stands.
Okay. Just so long as you're aware that a lot of those voters, myself included, were not using the GR to say "Dunc-Tank is great, please continue!" but instead saying something more nuanced. I have a lot of positive experience with commercial entities providing sponsorship and contributions to free software projects without controlling them. My experience is that this often results in a substantial increase in quality with no compromise in principles (and that's despite my personal antipathy towards commercial entities and my personal desire to ideally never work for one). However, I know this doesn't always happen, and other people have had much more negative experiences than I have, which is (at least one reason) why there's a range of beliefs and a range of reactions. I do think that Dunc-Tank can fail despite accomplishing its nominal goals if enough people are upset, regardless of whether I agree with why they're upset. Communities require compromise and occasionally require doing something possibly helpful that one is happy with because other people aren't. However, I don't think that people expressing upsetness (even significant upsetness) is in and of itself a reason to call something a failure. There's a path in-between that and ignoring any opinions one doesn't agree with, and I don't think there's an all-fired hurry to come to a final conclusion. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
