James Carlson writes:
> Secondly, if the case is constructed in a way that it doesn't block
> someone else from solving the problem on their own, then calls to appeal
> may well be ignored. For example, if the project team chooses not to
> deliver an Ada compiler, but if (after the decision) anyone else could
> still do so without being blocked by the previous ARC decision (i.e.,
> the original case didn't say "we must not deliver Ada"), then the right
> answer is to do that technical work to deliver the feature rather than
> just arguing about it on a mailing list.
That's what I suggested already for the Ada and Java cases.
> In short, the first (and best!) place to appeal is to the project team
> members directly. Ask them if they can change their minds and (as in
> this case) enable the Ada support. It should be a trivial change on
> their part, so it's hard to imagine that they'd actually say "no" unless
> there was some compelling problem in doing so. It sometimes helps if
> you offer to help in some way -- offering to do beta tests or the like.
As I mentioned, Ada (unlike Java, which would just have to be enabled at
configure time) isn't that simple: you need a bootstrap compiler (which I
can provide) and distribute it to all build machines, creating an sfwnv
flag day.
Besides, thanks alot for the detailed description of the possible steps in
the appeals process. I'll contact the project team about the issues I
raised that haven't yet been addressed (or maybe just overlooked in the
flurry of mail in this case).
Rainer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
