Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Nathan J. Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/26/2002 13:34:51
Greywolf <email@example.com> writes:
> Begging pardon, folks, but I've noted that the pattern of implementation
> for things like this seems to be:
> - someone thinks it's a good idea.
> - A discussion gets underway and beaten to death, with no clear decision
> - The discussion dies off since nobody can come up with anything new to
> contribute to it.
> - The ensuing length of silence is mistaken for consent.
> - The good idea gets implemented, and when objections are re-raised,
> the objectors are instructed to see the archives.
> This is kind of how /etc/rc.d came into being, and although I don't disagree
> with its objective, I'm not terribly fond of the method by which it was
> "agreed upon".
Groups of people on mailing lists are incapable of coming to a clear
decision, and should therefore not be given responsibility for
deciding whether or not something is implemented.