Daniel Carosone <dan@geek.com.au> writes:
> > By the way, as a matter of process, it might be useful if core announced
> > that it was considering changes like this and explicitly solicited
> > input. If I had known that you were considering this, I would have
> > spoken up. I had assumed the recent discussion on the subject was just
> > the usual argumentation -- I didn't know you were going to make a decision.
> 
> I'm not so sure about this. I think there's an aspect here of
> "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for core. I'm sure that
> core took this decision exactly because of all the usual argumentation,
> in an effort to forestall more (which, of course, we're now doing
> anyway :)

I'm glad that they did, by the way. I've been a big advocate of their
doing precisely this in order to cut off endless and circular
debates. OTOH, it might be good if they sent out a "we're going to
make a decision about this matter -- send us private comments on your
opinion if you want to be heard.".

> I'm glad to see this, regardless of my personal opinions on the
> particular matter at hand.  Many of us have wished in the past that
> some of the long-running recurring threads could be put in their
> place with an official technical decision - either way. So I don't
> want to fault core for doing so this time.

Oh, yes. Absolutely. Even if the decision stands, it is far more
important that they made a decision!

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com