Piers, Leon was the only -1 vote. Rob voted +1, and he responded to discuss Leon's -1.
For maximum clarity, please respond only to the original message to register a vote. If you wish to respond to a vote itself, as Rob did to Leon's vote, it may be clearer to cancel out the vote in the subject line as I have done here. I trust you were being facetious about your comment about having to explain voting +1. I have been explaining for months what the system is and why it is designed that way (and what is incomplete about it and why that shouldn't stop its promotion to the P5EE namespace). Frankly, I am rather surprised that anyone would vote -1 on something that there was a week of discussion time for and no one commented. Nevertheless, I seek people's candid input, and we are still working out the norms in our still formative community on a halting, tentative, and fractious project. Also, the tendency in a project is toward inaction. This is why anyone who wishes to stand in the way of progress needs to justify themselves much more thoroughly than a person who wants to make progress. Stephen At 10:13 PM 8/27/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: >Rob Nagler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Leon Brocard writes: >> > P5EEx::Blue has nothing to do with enterprise. I don't know of anyone >> > using the code at all, let alone scaling it up, so we'd be giving the >> > wrong impression by labelling it as P5EE. >> >> Well, depends on what you mean by enterpise. When J2EE was first >> released, it wasn't used in the enterpise. Catch-22. Indeed, I've >> seen many J2EE apps fail to scale. >> >> ANYTHING will scale with enough refactoring. :-) > >I feel honour bound to point out that, so far, the two negative votes >have come from the two people who were involved in setting up the list >in the first place. > >-- >Piers > > "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in > possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." > -- Jane Austen? >
