[Council] Resolving the file transfer debate
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.
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
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