Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 1999
From: Joshua N Pritikin
November 19, 1999 10:50
Message ID: 19991119134914.K8005@eq1062.wks.na.deuba.com
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 11:17:37AM -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >If not, let's give this the
> >same treatment that we gave to ??.
> I believe your suggestion of tabling a proposal essentially sight
> unseen constitutes bad precedent.
I've already seen enough to request *something*. As evidence, I present
the flurry of 10+ semi-flame emails in quick succession.
> It should be tabled if it is found
> to be technically undesirable after careful analysis. I've pointed out
> some problems with it. Do these problems matter, or would you have us
> not pursue the matter merely to avoid hurting my feelings?
I am suggesting a more formal approach to the debate, that's all. I'm
*not* saying that the proposal or counterarguments are already
> That would
> be terrible. Please don't do that. We haven't heard from Sarathy on
> this yet.
Yes, of course.
> I really don't find it's something worth jumping up and down
Hm, who wrote half of the email this morning...oh, nevermind, it must
have been a different Tom. :-)
> I am not committed to pushing through any particular agenda here,
> or any precise implementation. I do think there are concerns that should
> be duly considered before any commitment is made. I would be delighted
> to hear that the things that appear worrisome are no grave matter.
I appreciate your sudden candor.
"Does `competition' have an abstract purpose?"
via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank