On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:46:27AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > I don't need to swallow this. I tried all I can to bring the nm-discussion > to a good end. Please compare wicherts original proposal, my input to it, > and the input of many other people such as Phillip Hands, Adam Harris and > so on, and then look at Wicherts updated proposal on -project. > > From my point of view, it got even worse, and it has not moved just a little > bit towards an acceptable proposal for me.
I don't entirely disagree with this actually; I'd rather n-m behaved somewhat differently to how Wichert describes it. But I'd already gone over that in -private and I wasn't really concerned enough to go over it again in -project. No one else seemed to either, actually, and the public thread in -project didn't really come to anything. > What else can I do? Restate your objections in public? (Forward the appropriate mails from -private to -project?) Become a member of n-m and subvert it from within? (Under the `those what do the work make the rules' theory) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <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
pgpUJUrv0e19t.pgp
Description: PGP signature