[Council] Resolving the file transfer debate

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Mon Jun 30 11:53:06 CDT 2003

On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 09:40, Peter Millard wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Norris" <rob at cataclysm.cx>
> > - We (Council) call for submissions from interested parties. In these
> >   submissions, the authors will outline why they beleive one method is
> >   better than others. Flames will be ignored. There will be a deadline
> >   on submissions.
> >
> > - Once all the submissions are received, Council members will review
> >   them and decide which method they beleive to be the best.
> >
> > - Council votes on which method we will back. This does not mean that
> >   the chosen method will advance to Draft in its current form, but
> >   simply that the Council believes that development should be focused
> >   there (this also allows us to quickly squash new flamewars on the
> >   topic).
> +1, Lets get this moving ASAP. I'm also anxious to get this stuff done. I think
> the deadline for submissions should be relatively short, say 7 days? Maybe we
> can get this done by the end of OSCON.
> pgm.

I don't care what we do.  I'm going to try and get someone to motion
last call on 95 and 96 after we make one modification for the stream
id.  After that, I don't care, I'm keeping myself out of it for the bias
reasons mostly.

There is one issue I need to bring up though, and that's JEP-52.  If
Justin resubmits the old 52 to replace the current one I'm going to be
very upset.  The current 52 was created _with_ Justin and he gave his
stamp of approval on the 52 number.  I made sure to ask him about that
many times.  He's even listed as an author.  Plus I think it's dumb
because 95/96 deprecate/retract 52. 95/96 are basically the evolution of
52, and almost used the 52 number.

I don't care though, I'm sick of working on this and getting it slammed
on the ground non stop.


More information about the Council mailing list