On 08/02/2017 07:25 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:05:19AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> [[So the situation is as Richard described it:]] we can of course decide to >> remove something before the final release. > Moreover, this last sentence means that you still want a sword of Damocles > hanging on a feature that would have not been added without your interest for > it.
I don't think that is entirely fair. Scott was simply echoing a remark *I* had made (I've restored something clipped), which is totally banal: We can ALWAYS decide to remove something if we feel we have to do so. I don't think that either Scott or I see any reason to do that now or expect that there will be any such reason later. I, at least, just meant to point out that deciding not to take a second vote doesn't mean we can't act later if we feel we have to do so. Obviously. And just to be clear, the kind of reason that could possibly lead to removal of needauth, say, would NOT lie in the sorts of abstact considerations that have dominated recent discussion. Rather, it would emerge from testing, i.e., from problems encountered by users. So there is no suggestion here, either, that we should re-litigate the issue. Richard
