Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.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
>   made.
> - 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.

        - Nathan