[not cc'ed to the bug report]
On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 05:04:01PM -0400, Mike Goldman wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Mike Goldman wrote:
> > > Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
> > You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
> > it being unviable. I think a formal objection is far too strong.
> I think it is both undesirable and unnecessary, neither by themselves
> sufficient for a formal objection perhaps, but together very much
> objectionable.
Just because a proposal is objectionable doesn't mean that it's appropriate
to "formally object to it" or (equivalently) "call for a hold on it".
The way we're treating formal objections is more along the lines of "You
guys all suck. I'm taking my bat and my ball and going home." rather than
"Look, cricket sucks. Calvinball is much much much cooler. We really
should play that."
Alternate proposals, and acidic rants about how stupid proposals and
proposers are all very well, but formal objections are only appropriate
in extreme circumstances.
"This is a step backwards" is daft, but it's not that extreme.
BTW, please keep your line lengths around 75 characters rather than around
80 so they can be quoted conveniently.
Just my two cents.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpMDyHrMOoFN.pgp
Description: PGP signature