Writing under a new thread, as this does not directly pertain to T::M.
On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the current direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelming majority was content with how things were handled, thus the work is slated for continuation.
I resent that you continue to mis-characterize the discussion whenever it suits your rhetorical purposes. I urge you to check that impulse and stay with the process as we discussed then, because the rhetoric gets in the way of constructive discussion.
David, this is not the first time you are raising an issue with me "mischaracterizing" a process. I assure you - the above is how I personally see the discussion. It may not agree with your PoV, it may not even agree with the PoV of the majority of the participants. This doesn't make *my personal* takeaway any less valid. Even if you factor in the (non-trivial) possibility of a mental deviation - it *still* doesn't invalidate my perception of events. Continuously discounting them as "word play for rhetorical purposes" is not constructive.
(1) "fundamental design issues" ... With regards to #1, at the time, you had no objections to the *design*. Have you changed your mind?
I haven't changed my mind. I am not sure how we went from (paraphrasing nearly 10 minutes of the discussion about the "hub"):
The design is overengineered with at least one if not two levels of indirection, optimizing for the wrong thing, instead of the 99.9999% use case for perl testing
To
you had no objections to the *design*
If you feel that the above needs further discussion - take your time and think the answers through, none of this is burning. But *please* keep the discussion public.
Cheers
