On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > I think we are all in agreement, however, that MS is > violating the standard... are we not? > > With that as a given, do we Do Nothing? I don't think so; > We shouldn't, by action or inaction, permit violations. Now, > with that as a given, the question is How Do We Respond. > > At the very least, the commit sparked some interest and > involvement, even if much of it was worthless and clueless. > I like the idea of using that as a "door-opener" for an > Open Letter. Ideally, in that letter we explain the problem > and the rationale for the commit, we also explain how > to *remove* the "offending" commit (even though it's pretty > ez of course) and that we are keeping the commit in place > until such time as MS changes course, but we are aware that > it could affect adversely affect "innocent" users and so > we want to make sure that they have all the info they need > to remove it. > > The idea is to restore the transparency... If we had made a > more public "splash" about this, maybe it wouldn't have created > such a storm of uncluefull backlash; it's the idea that we > did something "sneaky", I think, is what some people find > (understandably) upsetting.
I don't think it is a transparency issue so much as a poor choice of venues for airing the disagreement. We've put something in the .conf file that many administrators will need to remove and almost none will have a need to keep. The message to Microsoft, such as it is, suffers because of that. -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
