Bug#914897: debating the wrong thing
On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 12:38 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#914897: debating the wrong thing"):
> > It is very demotivating to have discussed and implemented something
> > mostly years ago, for people then to come and complain "let's not
> > do
> > this at all" years later.
>
> We were told it would be optional. Unfortunately it turns out that
> the design is broken and it cannot sensibly be made optional.
There is no indication of that. So I'll assume the design isn't
broken.
You aren't entitled to just claim that.
> Nor does a failure to review and object to your design of an optional
> feature mean that you are entitled to assume consent for making the
> feature default or mandatory.
Making the feature default was discussed years ago which you are surely
aware of. It's not mandatory.
> The problem comes when a niche optional feature, with wide-ranging
> implications, is suddenly promoted to the default, without proper
> consultation and without a proper transition plan.
It wasn't made "suddenly" the default.
Ansgar
Reply to: