On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:26:53PM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Bron Gondwana wrote: > >Go for it. I said the comments of haters who want to hate were > >welcome too, and I stand by it. > > Bwahahahaha! Complaining about "haters" just like a 13-year-old girl!
Yo, I'm down with the kids, dawg. Or something. > If you really were competent enough to do what you purpose to do, you > would babble less about "haters" (and public proclamations of what you > purpose to do), and instead go off quietly on your own to do it. You'd > also stay quiet about it until you had something concrete to show for it. I want to talk to other people about what they need as well rather than just making everything up myself. Sorry for disturbing you with it. > "Concrete" means a written specification and interoperable code, both of > which can be reviewed. Then it goes the entire IETF process, in which > everybody and his grandmother weights in on how to "improve" what you have > done (so much for "regularity" and "consistency" as each "improvement" > goes in). Then, and only then, you try to convince the Big Players that > they is a compelling reason why they should adopt it instead of IMAP. > > I know how long it took me, and I wasn't trying to replace something that > was already widely deployed. It's true - the mountain looks very tall from the bottom - and you have climbed a mountain, which I haven't. It's not exactly the same mountain though, and we don't have exactly the same equipment. Feel free to keep laughing, but I'm starting climbing. And I'd rather do it in public than in secret right up until the IETF process bit. Do you still have your un-"improved" specification and interoperable code sitting around somewhere that you can show us all how nice it was before the grandmothers improved it? I'd be interested to see so I can tell what I'm in for. Thanks, Bron. _______________________________________________ imap5 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
