On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > 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.
Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure this was the correct interpretation. I must say that I had a hard time trying to correctly interpret some decisions. -- Enrico
