On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > I agree.
