> > > No. The compromise is funding a ferry system. Or laying Internet between > them. Or a passenger pigeon mail route. > > Sometimes compromise requires deep discussion about the motivations for > each side and coming to a lateral, mutually acceptable, solution. > > But we'd rather not discuss motivations and just bicker about the surface > results. I.e., argue the X, rather than the Y, of these little XY problems > we're solving. > > > Build a ferry system is alternative to building bridge. I can see that as a compromise, I can also see that as a separate project created to serve demand after the the bridge project is rejected. Where a ferry system is started because there is still demand for transit, just not enough demand to pay for a bridge.
With respect to the backtick proposal, what is the "ferry" project? Do we have to come up with one before we can cancel the "bridge" project or can we cancel the "bridge" project on its own merits and then discuss a future project that solves the actual underlying problem? "Ferry" projects might be: more/better training on PHP, better documentation so that the backtick is no longer an "obscure" feature to those that don't have a shell/Unix/Perl background, tooling to warn people when they misuse this feature. Walter -- The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
