License Proliferation Dissatisfaction
Forrest J. Cavalier III
mibsoft at mibsoftware.com
Mon Apr 23 17:20:12 UTC 2007
Russ Nelson wrote:
> Forrest J. Cavalier III writes:
> > In this reply I hear "La, La, La, I'm not listening."
> > What concrete method was used by the committee to determine popularity?
> No, what you're heading is "I don't care if you don't like it. I
> expected you to not like it." And I by "you" I don't mean that we set
> out to screw Larry Rosen. I mean that *any* procedure, *any* number
> of groups, *any* categorization was guaranteed to produce
> dissatisfaction. I feel sorry for Larry, but I'm not going to defend
> the decision. It's reasonable. It may not be perfect. It's better
> than what we had before. The best is the enemy of the good. Deal
> with improvement and changes like a grown-up (not that many grown-ups
> deal with change well -- but we're *supposed* to).
In the 21st century, quality is recognized by examining the process, not the result.
You say Larry didn't like the result. You keep pointing to the result and
saying it is "good and reasonable." But...
I asked about the process. What concrete method was used by the committee
to determine popularity?
How is that "not being grown-up?" Is asking about the process second-guessing
I expected a quick URL or something, since it would be in the decision-making
minutes of the committee. But you are avoiding the question so much, that it
seems like you are hiding something. Maybe it is a lack of reproducible process
that you are hiding?
More information about the License-discuss